Cited by

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

574 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Roger Wayne Nash AKA Roger Nash La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
art. 882 (an appellate court may correct an illegal sentence “at any time”); see also State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01)
State v. Nash 239 So. 3d 866 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State v. Evans 245 So. 3d 1112 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
State v. Bradley 243 So. 3d 1253 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
11/28/01), ; State ex rel.
State v. Looney 245 So. 3d 1143 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
11/28/01), ; State ex rel.
State v. Handy 226 So. 3d 1182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
11/28/01), -799 , the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with the restriction of benefits even in the absence of the district court delineating them.
State v. Robertson 243 So. 3d 1196 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State v. Jackson 243 So. 3d 1093 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
11/28/01), ; State ex rel.
State v. English 243 So. 3d 1145 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
11/28/01), ; see also State v. Hotard , 44,431 (La.
State v. Mahogany 225 So. 3d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
11/28/01), , the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with the restrictions of benefits.” State v. Jones, 15-0839, p. 2 (La.
State v. Davis 224 So. 3d 1211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Calhoun 222 So. 3d 903 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
11/28/01), ; State ex rel.
State v. Plater 222 So. 3d 897 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
11/28/01), ; State ex rel.
Byron Gulley v. Hope Youth Ranch 221 So. 3d 21 La. 2017
State v. Williams, 00–1725, p. 13 (La.11/28/01)
Horton v. Blackrock Aggregates, LLC 213 So. 3d 429 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Pierce 216 So. 3d 210 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State v. Luckey 212 So. 3d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
11/28/01), -800 ; State v. Rainey, 14-664 (La.
State v. Duncan 213 So. 3d 1247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Carter 210 So. 3d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
11/28/01), ; see also State v. Kondylis, 14-0196 (La.
Nabors Offshore Corp. v. Caterpillar Inc. 204 So. 3d 1068 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Shelton 207 So. 3d 549 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State v. Reid 202 So. 3d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Dowell 198 So. 3d 243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
or suspension of sentence Accordingly, our jurisprudence has recognized that “this paragraph 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 15statute.” State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), .
State of Louisiana v. Ashaki Okung Kelly 195 So. 3d 449 La. 2016
11/28/01), this court found that despite the state’s failure to file a motion to reconsider or otherwise appeal an illegally lenient sentence, the court of appeal retains the authority to remand a case to the district court to correct sentencing errors absent any complaint by the state under the general provisions of L
State v. Johnston 198 So. 3d 151 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
See State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Butler 197 So. 3d 179 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Gibson 192 So. 3d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
15:301.1 A. See also State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), (holding that that 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. McCorvey 187 So. 3d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
6 State v. Williams, 2000-1725, pp. 10-11 (La.11/28/01), -99 ; State v, Byrd, 2012-0556, p. 14 (La.App.
State v. Smith 184 So. 3d 241 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
See State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Jones 184 So. 3d 822 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
15:301.1(A) and State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with the restrictions of benefits.
State v. Diaz 183 So. 3d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Williams, 2000-1725, pp. 10-11 (La.11/28/Dl), -99 .
State v. Preston 178 So. 3d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Guidry,, 12-296 (La.App.
State v. Paulson 177 So. 3d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
15:301.1 A; State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), (La.
State v. Nealon 179 So. 3d 661 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
11/28/01), ; State v. Braziel, 42,668 (La.App.2d Cir. 10/24/07), .
State v. Fairman 173 So. 3d 1278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
15:301.1 and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , a statute’s requirement that a defendant be sentenced without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence is self-activating.
State v. Griffin 176 So. 3d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
15:301.1 A and State v. Williams, 00-1725, pp. 10-11 (La.11/28/01), -99 , a sentence is deemed to have been imposed with .these restrictions of benefits even in the absence of the district court delineating them.
Lake Air Capital II, LLC v. Perera 172 So. 3d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 10/31/07), ; State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 4 n. 3 (La.11/28/01), ; St.
State of Louisiana v. Christopher J. Brown La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Brown 164 So. 3d 395 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Williams, 00-1725, pp. 9-10 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Etienne 172 So. 3d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 14 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Poree 166 So. 3d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
15:301.1(A) and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.l 1/28/01), , even when these limitations are inadvertently omitted, they are deemed to have been imposed.
State v. Hartford 162 So. 3d 1202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the defendants’ sentences are deemed to have been imposed with the restriction of benefits.
State v. Nelson 169 So. 3d 493 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Bell 169 So. 3d 574 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01); .
State v. Hooter 162 So. 3d 532 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
2 Cir. 4/11/03), , writ denied, 2003-1359 (La.12/12/03), ; State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Wilson 167 So. 3d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
5 Cir. 5/26/09) , , writ denied, 09-1385 (La.2/12/10), (citing State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ).
State v. Bell 169 So. 3d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; see also State v. Kondylis, 14-0196 (La.10/3/14), .
State v. Tillery 167 So. 3d 15 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2014
(See State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01); , where the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that paragraph A of La.
State of Louisiana v. Ashaki Okung Kelly La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
11/28/01), our supreme court discussed the issue of whether an appellate court may recognize an illegally lenient sentence as a patent error pursuant to La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Kelly 153 So. 3d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , our supreme court discussed the issue of whether an appellate court may recognize an illegally lenient sentence as a patent error pursuant to La.Code Crim.P.