Cited by

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

574 citing documents.

Harrah's Bossier City Investment Co., LLC v. Bridges 41 So. 3d 438 La. 2010
The principal rule is the “text of a statute is considered the best evidence of legislative intent or will.” State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), , citing Norman J. Singer, Statutory Construction (6th ed.2000) § 46:03.
HARRAH'S BOSSIER CITY INV. CO. v. Bridges 41 So. 3d 438 La. 2010
State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), , citing Norman J. Singer, Statutory Construction (6th ed.2000) § 46:03.
State v. Vallier 34 So. 3d 1168 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
This article has been interpreted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Williams , XXXX-XXXX (La.11/28/01), as follows: Paragraph A of La.
State of Louisiana v. Carey Vallier, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
This article has been interpreted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), as follows: Paragraph A of La.
State v. Brown 36 So. 3d 974 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; see also La.
State v. George 39 So. 3d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), ; Esteen , 01-879 at 29, 821 So.2d at 78 .
State v. Nelson 39 So. 3d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
However, this error does not require corrective action, because under State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), , and LSA-R.S.
State v. England 38 So. 3d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Under State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), , and LSA-R.S.
State v. Richardson 33 So. 3d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Under State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), , and LSA-R.S.
State v. Allen 30 So. 3d 1024 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
15:301.1 A. The Louisiana Supreme Court held in State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), , 799 that: In instances where these restrictions are not recited at sentencing, L.A.
State v. Evans 30 So. 3d 958 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
15:301.1 and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (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. Hearn 30 So. 3d 873 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
It appears this error does not require corrective action because under State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), , 799 and LSA-R.S.
State v. Stephens 27 So. 3d 987 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
15:301.1 provides that in instances where the statutory restrictions are not recited at sentencing, they are contained in the sentence, whether or not imposed by the sentencing court, State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), -799 , and, accordingly, this Court need take no action to correct the trial court’s failure to specify that the defendant’s sentence be served without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence because the correction is statutorily effected.
State v. Farinas 28 So. 3d 1132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
See: State v. Williams, 000-1725, p. 8 (La.11/28/01), (discussing due process right to appeal.).
State v. Smith 28 So. 3d 1092 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
However, this Court need not take corrective action on this error, as State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), , 799 and LSA-R.S.
Foti v. Holliday 27 So. 3d 813 La. 2009
See State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 13 (La.11/28/01), ("What a legislature says in the text of a statute is considered the best evidence of the legislative intent or will").
State v. Fontenberry 27 So. 3d 904 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Williams, 00-1725, pp. 16-17 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Maxwell 17 So. 3d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Williams, 2000-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Boudreaux, 2007-0089, pp. 3-4 (La.App.
State v. Hotard 17 So. 3d 64 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Campbell 15 So. 3d 1076 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Harvey 12 So. 3d 496 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
15:301.1 A and State v. Williams, XXXX-XXXX (La.11/28/01), , the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with the restriction, even in *498 the absence of the trial court's failure to delineate the restriction.
State v. Caffrey 15 So. 3d 198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
art. 882; State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Turner, 03-325 (La.App.
State v. Strattman 13 So. 3d 1129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
15:301.1 and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (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. Thomas 13 So. 3d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
This error does not require corrective action, because under State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/29/01), , and LSA-R.S.
State v. USSIN 10 So. 3d 848 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Smith 7 So. 3d 855 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
2d Cir.1/25/06), , | writ denied, 2006-1263 (La.2/1/08), , citing State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), , and LSA-C.Cr.P.
Housing Authority of New Orleans v. Eason 9 So. 3d 269 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Sampognaro 9 So. 3d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Williams, 00-1725, pp. 16-17 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Simon 2 So. 3d 570 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
See State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
Followed State v. Smith 1 So. 3d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
We follow the principles enunciated |4in State v. Campbell, 01-0829 (La.11/2/01), (per curiam) and State v. Williams, 00-1725, pp. 16-17 (La.11/28/01), .
State of Louisiana v. Henry Bryan Lowe La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
11/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Lowe 999 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Thus, pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , and La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Sudds 998 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, XXXX-XXXX (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Braziel, 42,668 (La.App.2d Cir.10/24/07), .
State v. Kotrla 996 So. 2d 1224 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
See State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , and La.Code Crim.P.
State of Louisiana v. Marshall M. Kotrla La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
11/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Belsha 997 So. 2d 162 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
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), .
Meyer & Associates, Inc. v. Coushatta Tribe of La. 992 So. 2d 446 La. 2008
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
Borel v. Young 989 So. 2d 42 La. 2008
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 13 (La.11/28/01), ; La.Rev.
State v. Strother 990 So. 2d 130 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Armstard 991 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Swayzer 989 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Coleman, 42,128 (La.App.
State v. Agee 990 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
4 Cir. 3/19/03), ; State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Smith 989 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
However, in State v. Williams, XXXX-XXXX (La.11/28/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that in instances where the sentence restrictions are not recited at sentencing, La.Rev.Stat.
State v. James 988 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Shaw 987 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Boudreaux, 07-0089, pp. 3-4 (La.App.
State v. Presson 986 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
See, State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Batts, 43,142 (La.App.
State v. Neville 986 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Furthermore, in State v. Williams, XXXX-XXXX, p. 10 (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
State v. Jones 983 So. 2d 95 La. 2008
State v. Interiano, 03-1760 (La.2/13/04), ; State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Carr, 99-2209 (La.5/26/00), .
State v. Lac 982 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Thus, pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , and La.Code Crim.P.
State of Louisiana v. L.A.C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
11/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.