Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Smith, 839 So. 2d 1.

673 citing documents.

State v. Gauthier 941 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
State v. Smith, 01-2574, pp. 6-7 (La.1/14/03), .
State v. Dorsey 939 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Wilson 938 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Thomas 935 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Humphries 927 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Harris 911 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
do, holding that "the imposition of a sentence, although within the statutory limit, may violate a defendant's constitutional right against excessive punishment that is enforceable by this court on appellate review of his conviction.” The supreme court has repeatedly upheld the rule of appellate review of sentences, most recently in State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03), .
State of Louisiana v. Tyrone Hypolite La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Hypolite 903 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03), .
State v. Alexander 904 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Smith, 01-2574, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), .
State v. Fleming 902 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
5 Cir. 5/26/04) , -961 , writ denied, 04-1605 (La.11/15/04), (citing State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03), ).
State v. Rubin 899 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03), .
State of Louisiana v. Jordie Kenry Rubin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Proctor 901 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Smith, 01-2574, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), .
State v. Jackson 895 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.01/14/03), .
State v. Thompkins 896 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Smith, 01-2574, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), .
State of Louisiana v. Cordell Kendrick Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
1/14/03), the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that an appellate court is to review an excessive-sentence claim in accordance with the following standard: 3 A trial judge has broad discretion when imposing a sentence and a reviewing court may not set a sentence aside
State v. Williams 875 So. 2d 1043 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
In its opinion in State v. Smith, 01-2574, pp. 6-7 (La.1/14/03), , the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that an appellate court is to review an excessive-sentence claim in accordance with the following standard: A trial judge has broad discretion when imposing a sentence and a reviewing *1046 court may not set a sentence aside absent a manifest abuse of discretion.
State v. Bailey 875 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Smith, 01-2574, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), .
State v. Alexander 871 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
In State v. Smith, 01-2574, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that sentences of 35 to 50 years have been found to be acceptable for first offenders convicted of armed robbery, and State v. Thomas, 98-1144, p. 2 (La.10/9/98), .
State v. Hartwell 866 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
In State v. Smith, 01-2574, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that sentences of 35 to 50 years have been found to be acceptable for first offenders convicted of armed robbery, citing Augustine and State v. Thomas, 98-1144, p. 2 (La.10/9/98), .
State v. Robicheaux 865 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Smith, 01-2574, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), .
State v. Perrilloux 864 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
See, State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03), , reh'g denied, 01-2574 (La.3/21/03), 2003 La.
State v. McLelland 860 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Smith, 01-2574, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), .