Cited by

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

574 citing documents.

State v. NIONS 952 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
15:301.1A and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with this restriction even in the absence of the trial court's failure to delineate it.
State v. Davis 947 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.
State of Louisiana v. Derick Dewayne Davis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Price 952 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
State v. Williams , XXXX-XXXX p. 9-10 (La.11/28/01), .") In this case, the trial court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment for seven years at hard labor.
State v. JL 945 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
"Pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Brister 946 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.
State of Louisiana v. Carl W. Brister La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.
State of Louisiana v. Joseph Jody" Duplichan, Jr. " La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Duplichan 945 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.
State of Louisiana v. Robert Andrews La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
11/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.
State of Louisiana v. Darrel Brent Whatley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Aa/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Whatley 943 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), and La.
State v. Jones 940 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
In State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the supreme court held that § 301.1 authorized an appellate court to correct an illegally lenient sentence absent any complaint by the state and when a defendant is the only party bringing an appeal.
State v. Fowler 940 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Cooks, 36,613 (La.App.2d Cir.12/4/02), .
State v. Dorsey 939 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Morgan 943 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
In State v. Williams , XXXX-XXXX, p. 16 (La.11/28/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that this Court has the authority to correct an illegal sentence, i.e., even an illegally lenient sentence, despite the failure of either party to raise the issue in the district court or on appeal if the correction is ministerial.
State v. Mourra 940 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/29/01), ; State ex rel.
State of Louisiana v. Daniel R. Fontenot, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Fontenot 934 So. 2d 935 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Touchet 931 So. 2d 1264 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.
State v. SDG 931 So. 2d 1244 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), and La.
State of Louisiana v. Wilbert Touchet, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.
State of Louisiana v. S.D.G. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.
State of Louisiana v. Al Jerome Jeansonne, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.
State v. S.D.G. 931 So. 2d 1244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), and La.
State v. Jeansonne 931 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), and La.
State v. Moses 932 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
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 of Louisiana v. Tyrone Davis, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
art. 882 and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01)
State of Louisiana v. David Wayne Leday La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Williams 932 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
See also State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Davis 929 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
art. 882 and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Leday 930 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Crandell 924 So. 2d 122 La. 2006
Chief Justice Calogero's dissent in State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , reiterates that what appears to be retaliatory in nature may have a chilling effect on the exercise of a defendant's right to appeal.
State v. Williams 924 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
[14] 00-1725 (La.11/29/01), .
State v. Crawford 922 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
The trial court's failure to state this requirement at sentencing need not be corrected on remand because under State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/29/01), , and LSA-R.S.
State v. King 922 So. 2d 1207 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
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. Zeigler 920 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Nonetheless, pursuant to State v. Williams, XXXX-XXXX (La.11/28/01), , and La.
State of Louisiana v. G.M.W., Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
11/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.
State v. GMW, JR. 916 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), and La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Gatti 914 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Gardner 907 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
15:301.1(C), as interpreted by State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , imposes these restrictions by operation of law.
State v. Shannon 902 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Williams 902 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
15:301.1 and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), -801 , which interprets that statute, the sentence is deemed to contain these restrictions.
State v. Vidal 901 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
5 Cir. 12/30/02) , (citing State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/02), ).
State v. Williams 901 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State of Louisiana v. Arthur Major III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
11/28/01), State v. August, 03-1478 (La.App.
State v. Major 898 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
art. 882; State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. August, 03-1478 (La.App.
State v. Jackson 895 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Cooper, 38,743 (La.App.2d Cir.09/22/04), .
State v. Elliott 896 So. 2d 1110 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
[11] State v. Williams 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Colar 893 So. 2d 152 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
The Louisiana Supreme Court, in State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), at 799 , determined that La.R.S.