DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Williams, 800 So. 2d 790.

574 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. David Wayne Wilturner La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    11/28/01), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that where statutory restrictions, such as those enumerated in La.R.S.
  • State v. Wilturner 858 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    In State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that where statutory restrictions, such as those enumerated in La.R.S.
  • State v. Chisley 860 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
  • State v. Williams 859 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    1 Cir. 4/11/02), -01 (Guidry, J., dissenting)(noting that while State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , it did not overrule Fraser and expressing his view that Williams is inapplicable to sentencing errors of a type different than those subject to automatic correction under La.
  • State v. Phillips 853 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    11/28/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that paragraph A of the statute self-activates the correction and eliminates the need to remand for a ministerial correction of an illegally lenient sentence, which may result from the failure of the sentencing court to impose punishment in conformity with that provided in the statu
  • In re Laudumiey 849 So. 2d 515 La. 2003
    State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State ex rel.
  • State v. Small 850 So. 2d 1019 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
  • State v. Fuller 850 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
  • State v. Turner 850 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    According to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , and La.C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Guilbeau 848 So. 2d 538 La. 2003
    In State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , this Court noted that a defendant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to an illegally lenient sentence and concluded that an appellate court may recognize, sua sponte, an illegally lenient sentence on patent error review.
  • State v. Bell 848 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    15:301.1(A) and the rationale in State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the restrictive provision of La.
  • State v. Decrevel 847 So. 2d 1197 La. 2003
    See State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/29/01), ; see also State v. Clemons, 01-1032 (La.App.
  • State v. Jerome 845 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    [17] State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/29/01), .
  • State v. Fletcher 845 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    15:301.1 and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), -801 , which interprets that statute, the sentence is deemed to contain these restrictions.
  • State v. Jones 846 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    15:301.1(A) was enacted after the defendant’s crime was committed, that statute has retroactive application under State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
  • State v. Francois 844 So. 2d 1042 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    15:301.1: State v. Williams , XXXX-XXXX (La.11/28/01), .
  • State v. Roberts 844 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    Furthermore, in State v. Williams, XXXX-XXXX (La.11/28/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that section A of the statute self-activates the correction and eliminates the need to remand for a ministerial correction of an illegally lenient sentence, which may result from the failure of the sentencing court to impose punishment in conformity with that provided in the statute.
  • State v. Howard 843 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    Moreover, in State v. Williams, XXXX-XXXX (La.11/28/01), , the Supreme Court has ruled that paragraph A self-activates the correction and eliminates the need to remand for a ministerial correction of an illegally lenient sentence, which may result from the failure of the sentencing court to impose punishment in conformity with that provided in the statute.
  • State v. Comena 843 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    State v. Williams, 2000-1726 (La.11/28/01), .
  • State v. Hall 843 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    Moreover, in State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the Supreme Court found that paragraph A self-activates the correction and eliminates the need to remand for a ministerial correction of an illegally lenient sentence, which may result from the failure of the sentencing court to impose punishment in conformity with that provided in the statute.
  • State v. Bentley 844 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    See State v. Williams, XXXX-XXXX (La.11/28/01), .
  • State v. Williams 841 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    [11] State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
  • State v. Davis 841 So. 2d 952 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    [30] State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
  • State v. Massey 841 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    We note that in State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court expanded our error patent review to include illegally lenient sentences.
  • State v. Guilbeau 838 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    Further, in State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01); , the Louisiana Supreme Court considered whether an appellate court could recognize *163 a trial court's failure to impose sentence without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence when the trial court was required to do so by the statute.
  • State v. Jones 839 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • State v. Norris 837 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    14:32.1, it is appropriate that we remand for resentencing in accordance with State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
  • State v. Joseph 836 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
  • State v. Qutoum 839 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Clemons, 01-1032 (La.
  • State v. Wix 838 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    See State v. Williams, XXXX-XXXX (La.11/28/01), .
  • State v. Joseph 839 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    [12] 00-1725, p. 22-23 (La.11/28/01)
  • State v. Lee 836 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    [18] See, State v. Williams, 00-1725, pp. 9-17 (La.11/28/01), 802 ; State v. Butler, 01-0907, pp. 12-13 (La.App.
  • State v. Jordan 836 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , provides that an appellate court may recognize and correct an illegally lenient sentence under the authority of LSA-R.S.
  • State v. Wilson 833 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    In State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01); , the supreme court held that an appellate court may recognize an illegally lenient sentence as a patent error under La.Code Crim.P.
  • State v. Davis 834 So. 2d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/29/01), .
  • State v. Cooks 833 So. 2d 1034 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
  • State v. Armstead 832 So. 2d 389 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), .
  • State v. Lefeure 831 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    State v. Williams, XXXX-XXXX (La.11/28/01), .
  • State v. Tapps 832 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    15:301.1; State v. Williams, (La.11/28/01), .
  • State v. Perkins 831 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    15:301.1 and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), -801 , which interprets that statute, the sentence is deemed to contain these restrictions, as provided by Paragraphs A and C of that article: A. When a criminal statute requires that all or a portion of a sentence imposed for a violation of that statute be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspensio
  • State v. Stokes 831 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    However, the matter does not need to be remanded for correction because under State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/29/01), , and LSA-R.S.
  • State v. Bagneris 830 So. 2d 1047 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    State v. Williams, XXXX-XXXX (La.11/28/01), .
  • State v. Burt 828 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Furthermore, in State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that section A of the statute self-activates the correction and eliminates the need to remand for a ministerial correction of an illegally lenient sentence, which may result from the failure of the sentencing court to impose punishment in conformity with that provided in the statute
  • State v. Major 829 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Although we recognize that State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , arguably calls into question the jurisprudential rule against correcting a patent sentencing error favorable to the defendant when the state fails to appeal, 4 we read the holding in Williams as applying only to sentencing errors subject to automatic correction under La.
  • State v. Shivers 827 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    We recognize the failure of the trial court to impose these provisions pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01); .
  • State v. Segura 829 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    15:301.1 and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), -801 , which interprets that statute, the sentence is "deemed" to contain these restrictions, as provided by Paragraphs A and C of that article: A. When a criminal statute requires that all or a portion of a sentence imposed for a violation of that statute be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspens
  • State v. Cox 829 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    However, in State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the Supreme Court expanded an appellate court's error patent review to include illegally lenient sentences.
  • State v. Stevenson 829 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
  • State v. Stansberry 829 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    14:95.1(B) requires a fine of “not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars.” In State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the Supreme Court ruled that the appellate court’s error patent review extends to |fiillegally lenient sentences.
  • State v. Woods 828 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    Moreover, in State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the Supreme Court has ruled that paragraph A self-activates the correction and eliminates the need to remand for a ministerial correction of an illegally lenient sentence, which may result from the failure of the sentencing court to impose punishment in conformity with that provided in the statute.