Cited by

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

574 citing documents.

State v. Handy 156 So. 3d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Ramirez 154 So. 3d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
15:301.1(A) and State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with the statutory restrictions as to the specified benefits.
State v. Castillo 167 So. 3d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
5 Cir. 5/17/00) , , writ denied, 00-1744 (La.6/29/01), , overruled on other grounds in State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), (finding that twenty years was not excessive for a second felony offender convicted of two counts of simple, burglary); (La.App.
State v. Earwood 164 So. 3d 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Brooks 150 So. 3d 913 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
15:301.1A and State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), , these prohibitions are deemed to have been imposed.
State ex rel. Nash v. State 147 So. 3d 1111 La. 2014
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 ex rel. Green v. State 147 So. 3d 686 La. 2014
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. Mills 153 So. 3d 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Watkins 146 So. 3d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Williams, 001725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Lindsey, 12-1195, p. 9 (La.
State v. Celestain 146 So. 3d 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 3/19/03), ; State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Gordon 146 So. 3d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Id.; State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 5 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Nora 143 So. 3d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
15:301.1(A) and State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), , these prohibitions are deemed to have been imposed.
State v. Martin 141 So. 3d 933 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), ; and State v. Hall, 02-1098 (La.App.
State v. Allen 141 So. 3d 877 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
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
State v. Smith 141 So. 3d 853 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Williams, 00-1725, pp. 14-15 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Haynes 144 So. 3d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
R.S.15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), .
Watkins v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 145 So. 3d 237 La. 2014
Because what the legislature says in the text of a statute is considered the best evidence of legislative intent, State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 13 (La.11/28/01), , we begin with an examination of the language of La.
State v. Young 140 So. 3d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Stanfield 137 So. 3d 788 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Nevertheless, pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with the restriction of benefits, even in the absence of the trial court minute entry showing the restrictions.
State v. Gros 138 So. 3d 763 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.l 1/28/01), .
State v. Gregoire 143 So. 3d 503 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Warner 137 So. 3d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
15:301.1A and State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with these restrictions of benefits, even in the absence of the trial court’s failure to delineate them.
State v. Mandigo 136 So. 3d 292 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
15:301.1; State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Moore 134 So. 3d 1265 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
See State v. Braziel, 42,668 (La.App.2d Cir. 10/24/07), ; State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Dominick 133 So. 3d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 12/22/11), (citing State v. Williams, 20001725 (La.11/28/01), ).
State v. Webb 133 So. 3d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Johnson 133 So. 3d 138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Augustine 133 So. 3d 148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Per State v. Williams, 00 — p.725s (La.11/28/01), , the self-enacting provision of La.Rev.Stat.
State v. Edwards 132 So. 3d 448 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Turner, 46,683 (La.App.2d Cir.12/14/11), , writ denied, 12-0165 (La.06/22/12), .
State v. Celestine 131 So. 3d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
15:301.1A and State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Jones 128 So. 3d 622 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Cooks, 36,613 (La.App.2d Cir.12/4/02), .
State v. Dominick 129 So. 3d 782 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 3/19/03), (citing State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ).
State v. Passow 136 So. 3d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
15:301.1; State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State of Louisiana v. Dennis Weldon Thompson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Thompson 123 So. 3d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Dussett 126 So. 3d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, 2000-1725, pp. 11-12, 14 (La.11/28/01), -799, 801 .
State v. Hollins 123 So. 3d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 3/19/03), , citing State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Hackett 122 So. 3d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
15:301.1 A; State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), .
Diecidue v. Tittle 122 So. 3d 1143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Beaulieu 122 So. 3d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
15:301.1(A); 9 State v. Williams, 2000-1725, pp. 11-12, 14 (La.11/28/01), -799, 801 .
State v. Cooper 120 So. 3d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Lawrence 120 So. 3d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
15:301.1(A) and State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), -99 , the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with this restriction, and no further action by this Court is required.
State v. Taylor 118 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 13 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Fields 120 So. 3d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
15:301.1 A, and State v. Williams, 00-1725, pp. 10-11 (La.11/28/01), -799 , the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with these restrictions of benefits even in the absence of the district court delineating them.
State v. Jones 119 So. 3d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Dunn 119 So. 3d 910 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
However, in State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), -99 , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: Paragraph A of LA.REV.STAT.
State v. Byrd 119 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
15:301.1(A), which is self-activating, and State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with the restriction of benefits.
State v. Burton 116 So. 3d 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir.1984); see also State v. *868 Williams, 00-1725, pp. 9-10 (La.11/28/01), .
State of Louisiana v. Michael James Lacour La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 13 (La.11/28/01)
State v. Veal 116 So. 3d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
15:301.1A and State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with these restrictions of benefits, even in the absence of the trial court’s failure to delineate them.