Cited by

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

574 citing documents.

State v. Maxwell 83 So. 3d 113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Boudreaux, 2007-0089, pp. 3-4 (La.App.
State v. Turner 82 So. 3d 449 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
See State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Thomas 81 So. 3d 848 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Under State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , and LSA-R.S.
State v. Ford 81 So. 3d 841 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
11/28/01), , the restriction of benefits is self-activating.
State v. Saint-Vil 82 So. 3d 318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The Louisiana Supreme Court stated in State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), , that in instances where the restrictions are not recited at sentencing, La.
State v. Lommasson 81 So. 3d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 9 (La.11/28/01), , 797 In State v. Guilbeaux, 99-591, p. 6-7 (La.App.
State v. Mouton 78 So. 3d 245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
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. Victor 82 So. 3d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), , and LSA-R.S.
State v. Trammell 78 So. 3d 205 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
See State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Smith 77 So. 3d 1056 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Garner 78 So. 3d 186 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Cooks, 36,613 (La.App.2d Cir.12/4/02), .
State v. Rochon 75 So. 3d 876 La. 2011
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 12 (La.11/28/01); ; State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00); .
State v. Tillman 74 So. 3d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
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 v. Turner 75 So. 3d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
00-1725, p. 10 (La.1/28/01), .
State v. Willis 75 So. 3d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Martin 72 So. 3d 928 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Joseph 71 So. 3d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Johnson 70 So. 3d 1097 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Coleman, 42,128 (La.App.2d Cir.6/20/07), .
State v. Kennedy 73 So. 3d 985 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
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 in the absence of the trial court’s failure to delineate them.
State v. Rockett 71 So. 3d 1030 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
15:301.1(A); see State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Massey 71 So. 3d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01),20 ; Esteen , 01-879 at 29, 821 So.2d at 78 .
State v. Thomas 70 So. 3d 96 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Jones 66 So. 3d 1202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
15:301.1 A and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (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.
Barcia v. Louisiana Medical Malpractice Insurance Co. 67 So. 3d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 13 (La.11/28/01), ; La.Rev.Stat.
State v. Martin 70 So. 3d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In addition, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated in State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), , that in instances where the restrictions are not recited at sentencing, La.
State v. Simmons 67 So. 3d 525 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
15:301.1 A and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with the restriction, even in the absence of the trial court’s failure to delineate the restriction.
State v. Garcia 66 So. 3d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In addition, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated in State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), , that in instances where the restrictions are not recited at sentencing, La.
State v. Vargas 66 So. 3d 29 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
5 Cir. 10/29/02) , , writ denied, 02-2921 (La.4/21/03), ; (citing State v. Williams, 00-1725, pp. 14-15 (La.11/28/01), ).
State of Louisiana v. Brian Keith Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Nevertheless, this error need not be corrected on remand because under State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/29/01), and LSA-R.S.
State v. Thomas 63 So. 3d 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Nevertheless, this error need not be corrected on remand because under State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/29 [28]/01), , and LSA-R.S.
State v. Dickerson 65 So. 3d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
15:301.1 and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.l 1/28/01), , the sentence is deemed to contain these restrictions without corrective action.
State v. Howard 64 So. 3d 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
15:301 and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State of Louisiana v. Ricky Joseph Langley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Langley 61 So. 3d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 13 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Bennett 63 So. 3d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
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. Decloues 62 So. 3d 778 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
15:301.1 A and State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with the restriction of benefits, even in the absence of the minute entry showing the restrictions.
State v. Hanks 58 So. 3d 1093 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Sudds, 43,689 (La.App.2d Cir.12/3/08), .
State v. Phillips 61 So. 3d 130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. McKenzie 61 So. 3d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
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 benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence is self-activating.
State v. Reed 61 So. 3d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In addition, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated, in State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), , that in instances where the restrictions are not recited at sentencing, La.
State v. Fortune 54 So. 3d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
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 in the absence of the trial court’s failure to delineate them.
State v. Williams 53 So. 3d 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Morrison 55 So. 3d 856 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
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. MICKAIL 55 So. 3d 70 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Strother, 43,363 (La.App.2d Cir.8/20/08), , writ denied, 2008-2289 (La.5/15/09), .
State v. Jones 51 So. 3d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. (La.11/28/01), , and La.
State of Louisiana v. Bryan Means La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Nevertheless, this error need not be corrected on remand because under State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/29/01), and LSA-R.S.
State v. Richards 47 So. 3d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Burton 43 So. 3d 1073 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Watts 41 So. 3d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 13 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Patterson 38 So. 3d 1131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), -99 .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by