Cited by

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

574 citing documents.

State v. Lacour 117 So. 3d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 13 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Cureaux 116 So. 3d 833 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.
State v. Tatten 116 So. 3d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Furthermore, in State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.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 of Louisiana v. Simcoe Cole AKA Simco W. Cole La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
11/28/01), and the fifth circuit‟s opinion in Jefferson, we find the State does not have to object to the sentence imposed or file a motion to reconsider sentence to seek review of the sentence that was imposed in the case at bar.
State v. Cole 156 So. 3d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State of Louisiana v. Harvey G. Love La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
See State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Cleveland 115 So. 3d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
R.S.15:301.1 A; State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Gage 113 So. 3d 483 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Neely, 35,993 (La.
State v. Clements 112 So. 3d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
11/28/01), -99 , the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with these restrictions of benefits even in the Labsence of the district court delineating them.
State v. Goosby 111 So. 3d 494 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Braziel 42,668 (La.App.2d Cir.10/24/07), .
State v. Breaux 110 So. 3d 281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Willis v. State, 2011-2535 (La.7/27/12), (citing State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), ).
State v. I.C.S. 110 So. 3d 1208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See Smith v. State, 2010-1140 (La.1/24/12), ; State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Bourgeois 113 So. 3d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Gilmore 156 So. 3d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Boudreaux, 07-89, p. 3 (La.App.
State v. Lemonte 108 So. 3d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Nelson 109 So. 3d 413 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Davis 147 So. 3d 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Furthermore, in State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.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 sta
State v. Keller 106 So. 3d 696 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
15:301.1(A) and State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with these restrictions of benefits, even with the trial court’s failure to delineate them.
State v. Williams 106 So. 3d 1068 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
27 Under State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01); , 799 and La.
State v. Boyd 104 So. 3d 642 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Dietrich Jamal Thibodeaux AKA Dietrich Thibodeaux AKA Dietrich J. Thibodeaux Etc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01)
State v. Thibodeaux 100 So. 3d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Pleasant 102 So. 3d 247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Stovall 102 So. 3d 994 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The correction of this error is usually self-activating, see State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), , but because of the accompanying error patent, infra, the district court is instructed make the | .^correction upon resentencing.
State v. Glover 106 So. 3d 129 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Smith 101 So. 3d 524 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See also, State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Barnes 100 So. 3d 926 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
15:301.1; State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Winston 100 So. 3d 332 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Richoux 101 So. 3d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
art. 882; State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Turner, 03-325 (La.App.
State v. Clement 101 So. 3d 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
15:301.1 and State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (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. Molere 99 So. 3d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Furthermore, in State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the Court ruled that paragraph A of La.
State v. Henry 103 So. 3d 424 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Ennis 97 So. 3d 575 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Cyrus 97 So. 3d 554 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Boudreaux, 2007-0089, pp. 3-4 (La.App.
State v. Taylor 97 So. 3d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
In State v. Williams, 00-1725, pp. 14-15 (La.11/28/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court found: In instances where these restrictions are not recited at sentencing, La.
State v. Fikes 93 So. 3d 827 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Carter 96 So. 3d 1283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Williams, 00-1725, pp. 14-15 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Trosclair 89 So. 3d 340 La. 2012
“What a legislature says in the text of a' statute is considered the best evidence of the legislative intent or will.” State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 13 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Harris 91 So. 3d 493 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
11/28/01), , the sentences are deemed to have been imposed with the restriction despite the trial court’s failure to delineate the parole restrictions.
State v. Nye 89 So. 3d 411 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
15:801.1 A, 1 and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the lssentence 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. Massey 97 So. 3d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Further, in State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court found: In instances where these restrictions are not recited at sentencing, La.
State v. Dauzart 89 So. 3d 1214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
15:801.1 A and State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with the restrictions, even in the absence of the trial court’s failure to delineate the restrictions.
State v. Bennett 87 So. 3d 184 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
See State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Williams 88 So. 3d 1102 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
However, according to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01); , no corrective action is necessary because LSA-R.S.
State v. Horne 88 So. 3d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
15:301.1 and State v. Williams, 001725 (La.11/28/01), , a statute’s requirement that a defendant be sentenced without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence is self-activating.
State v. Denson 83 So. 3d 1183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), .
Smith v. State 84 So. 3d 487 La. 2012
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Napolean 87 So. 3d 127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Marlowe 81 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Boudreaux, 2007-0089, pp. 3-1 (La.App.
State v. Wyatt 83 So. 3d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by