Cited by

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

673 citing documents.

State v. Sholar 136 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03), , the defendant and co-defendant robbed a jewelry store.
State v. Diggins 126 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. Smith, 01-2574, pp. 6-7 (La.1/14/03), , the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the standard for evaluating such claims, stating: A sentence is unconstitutionally excessive when it imposes punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense or constitutes nothing more than needless infliction of pain and suffering.
State of Louisiana v. Kenneth G. Billingsley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Dana Bowles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
1/14/03), the supreme court stated that sentences of thirty-five to fifty years have been found to be “acceptable for first offenders convicted of armed robbery.” Based upon the nature of the crime, the nature and background of Defendant, and the sentence imposed for similar crimes by the same court and other court
State v. Bowles 123 So. 3d 350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. Smith, 01-2574, p. 7 (La.1/14/03), , the supreme court stated that sentences of thirty-five to fifty years have been found to be “acceptable for first offenders convicted of armed robbery.” Based upon the nature of the crime, the nature and background of Defendant, and the sentence imposed for similar crimes by the same court and other courts, we fi
State v. Billingsley 123 So. 3d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03), .
State v. Lang 128 So. 3d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 01-2574, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), .
State v. Vargas-Alcerreca 126 So. 3d 569 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 3/24/10), (quoting State v. Smith, 2001-2574, p. 7 (La.1/14/03), ).
State v. Williams 125 So. 3d 523 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03), ; State v. Elmore, supra.
State v. Sims 123 So. 3d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“A sentence is unconstitutionally excessive when it imposes punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense or constitutes nothing more than needless infliction of pain and suffering.” State v. Smith, 2001-2574, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), (citation omitted).
State v. Hackett 122 So. 3d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. Smith, 01-2574, pp. 6-7 (La.1/14/03), , the Court set forth the standard for evaluating a claim of excessive sentence: Louisiana Constitution of 1974, art. I, § 20 provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o law shall subject any person to ...
State v. Peters 123 So. 3d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 5/1/13) , , quoting State v. Smith, 01-2574, p. 7 (La.1/14/03), , this court set out the pertinent law relating to the review of excessive sentences: Louisiana Constitution of 1974, art. I, § 20 provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o law shall subject any person to ••• excessive ••• 'punishment.” (Emphasis added.)
State v. York 121 So. 3d 1226 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Santos-Castro 120 So. 3d 933 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 3/24/10), , quoting State v. Smith, 01-2574, p. 7 (La.1/14/03), .
State v. Crossley 117 So. 3d 585 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Smith 117 So. 3d 1273 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Fisher 117 So. 3d 1279 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.01/14/03)
State v. Chaplain 114 So. 3d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
*1283 | uExcessive Sentence The Louisiana Supreme Court, in State v. Smith, 2001-2574, pp. 6-7 (La.1/14/03), , set forth the standard for evaluating a claim of excessive sentence: Louisiana Constitution of 1974, art. I, § 20 provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o law shall subject any person to ...
State v. Smith 114 So. 3d 1229 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Pham 119 So. 3d 202 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03); .
State v. Martin 115 So. 3d 750 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.01/14/03)
State v. Johnson 115 So. 3d 723 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Humphreys 114 So. 3d 1184 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State of Louisiana v. Christopher Marshall, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Burton 116 So. 3d 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 01-2574, p. 6 (La.1/14/03) .
State v. Marshall 157 So. 3d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03), .
State of Louisiana v. Terrance Wayne Goudeau La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 10/10/12), -81, this court reviewed the jurisprudence and found mid-range sentences for armed robbery that were not considered excessive: In State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03), the supreme court affirmed a forty-year sentence imposed on a first offender for a conviction of armed robbery.
State v. Veal 116 So. 3d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The Supreme Court set forth the standard for evaluating a claim of excessive sentence in State v. Smith, 2001-2574, p. 7 (La.1/14/03), , 4: Louisiana Constitution of 1974, art. I, § 20 provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o law shall subject any person to • • • excessive ■ • • punishment.” (Emphasis added.)
State v. Slattery 116 So. 3d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. Smith, 2001-2574, pp. 6-7 (La.1/14/03), , the Court set forth the standard for evaluating a claim of excessive sentence: Louisiana Constitution of 1974, art. I, § 20 provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o law shall subject any person to ...
State v. Richard 115 So. 3d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 01-2574, (La.1/14/03), .
State v. Gage 113 So. 3d 483 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Jackson 112 So. 3d 1046 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03), .
State v. Austin 113 So. 3d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 01-2574, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), .
State v. Casimer 113 So. 3d 1129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03), .
State v. Tillman 110 So. 3d 1248 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.01/14/03), .
State v. Hamilton 110 So. 3d 256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 *261 (La.01/14/03)
State v. Holmes 110 So. 3d 242 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03), ; (La.App.
State v. Banks 110 So. 3d 252 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Hunter 110 So. 3d 619 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Thomas 110 So. 3d 640 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Yelverton 156 So. 3d 53 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 01-2574, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), .
State v. Womack 109 So. 3d 418 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Williams 108 So. 3d 319 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. Smith, 2001-2574, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), , the Supreme Court set forth the standard for evaluating a claim of excessive sentence, directing that even if a sentence is within statutory limits, it can be reviewed for excessiveness.
State v. Blackson 108 So. 3d 859 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.01/14/03)
State v. Nelson 109 So. 3d 413 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03), .
State v. Dussett 106 So. 3d 1203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Smith, 01-2574, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), .
State v. Lobo 106 So. 3d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03), .
State v. Sipp 104 So. 3d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Smith, 2001-2574, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), .
State v. Sam 105 So. 3d 988 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03), .
State v. Harris 105 So. 3d 914 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by