DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Mayeux, 820 So. 2d 526.

66 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana Versus Alvin Joseph Adams La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
    6/21/02), ); State v. Gonzalez, 15-26 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Tonya Avant Sandifer La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
    6/21/02), (where the Louisiana Supreme Court made an exception to this rule).
  • State of Louisiana Versus Andre A. Bradley La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
    6/21/02), ); State v. Gonzalez, 15-26 (La.
  • State Of Louisiana v. Walter Terell Fisher, Jr. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    6/ 21/ 02), - 531, also cited by the defendant, was limited to LSA-R.S.
  • State Of Louisiana v. Casey Lynn Lane La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
  • State v. Acevedo 273 So. 3d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    6/21/02), , there can be no dispute that the changes to La.
  • State of Louisiana Versus Marvin S. Acevedo La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
    6/21/02), there can be no dispute that the changes to La.
  • State v. Valadez 251 So. 3d 1273 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
  • Distinguished State ex rel. Esteen v. State 239 So. 3d 266 La. 2018
  • State Ex Rel. John Esteen v. State of Louisiana 239 So. 3d 233 La. 2018
  • State v. Henry 220 So. 3d 706 La. 2017
    6/21/02), , is equally applicable in this case.
  • State v. Logue 216 So. 3d 1140 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
    6/21/02), , the supreme court concluded that the defendant should have been sentenced under the DWI sentencing provisions at the time of conviction rather at the time of the offense.
  • State v. Ross 207 So. 3d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    6/21/02), (plurality) (although ameliorative sentencing provision enacted after date of offense was not explicitly retroactive, court applied retroactively in light of legislative intent).
  • State of Louisiana v. Sean Holloway 217 So. 3d 343 La. 2016
    6/21/02), where “the amended version of La.
  • State v. Mitchell 182 So. 3d 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    5 Cir. 10/13/09) , (citing State v. Mayeaux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), -31 ).
  • State v. Lommasson 81 So. 3d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    5 Cir. 10/13/09), , 897 n. 7, (citing State v. Mayeux, 01-3195, pp. 6-8 (La.6/21/02), -531 ).
  • State v. DELVALLE 73 So. 3d 1026 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    See and compare State v. Mayeux, 2001-3195 (La.6/21/02), .
  • State v. Carlisle 23 So. 3d 898 La. 2009
    Although relator’s sentence, agreed upon pursuant to a plea bargain, to a term of incarceration exceeding 60 days without ordering that he undergo a substance abuse evaluation was rendered illegal by this Court’s decision in State v. Mayeux, 01-3195, (La.6/21/02), (statutory amendment provided for *899 more lenient sentence for third or subsequent DWI offense applies upon conviction rather than date of the offense), the illegal condition ceased to exist once relator was released from prison on p
  • State v. Magana 27 So. 3d 893 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    See, State v. Mayeux, 01-3195, pp. 6-8 (La.6/21/02), -531 .
  • State v. Johnson 4 So. 3d 926 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    Olivieri v. State, 00-0172 (La.2/21/01), ; but see State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), (where the legislative intent and ameliorative nature of a new sentencing law caused the court to apply the new law effective at the time of the defendant’s *929 conviction instead of the old law effective at the time he committed the offense).
  • State v. BARBAY 985 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    3rd Cir.12/30/05), , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.10/6/06), , the defendant argues that the Supreme Court's holding in State v. Mayeux, XXXX-XXXX (La.6/21/02), , does not mandate sentencing a defendant to newer, harsher DWI penalty provisions upon conviction.
  • State v. Gilson 973 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    6/21/02), and State v. Pugh, 04-1183 (La.
  • State v. Hyde 968 So. 2d 726 La. 2007
    This Court made an exception to that rule in State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), , which held that the ameliorative changes made by 2001 La.
  • State of Louisiana v. James Oliver McKeehan, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    6/21/02), the supreme court addressed whether the 2001 amendment to La.R.S.
  • State v. McKeehan 969 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    14:98 as follows: In State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), , the supreme court addressed whether the 2001 amendment to La.R.S.
  • State v. Dick 951 So. 2d 124 La. 2007
    The legislature has made substantial changes in the penalty provisions of the statute, as well as declared that the statute must be applied retroactively In State v. Mayeux, 01-3195(La.6/21/02), , this Court considered the issue of whether those defendant already convicted of driving while intoxicated(DWI) could gain relief from the amended legislation.
  • Garza v. Delta Tau Delta Fraternity Nat. 948 So. 2d 84 La. 2006
    State v. Mayeux, 01-3195, p. 4 (La.6/21/02), .
  • State v. Pulliam 920 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    In State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), , the supreme court addressed whether the 2001 amendment to La.R.S.
  • State of Louisiana v. David James Pulliam La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    6/21/02), the supreme court addressed whether the 2001 amendment to La.R.S.
  • State v. Johnson 920 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    14:98(E)(1)(a) and the jurisprudence established in State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), and State v. Campbell, 03-3035 (La.7/6/04), .
  • State v. Corbitt 917 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    State v. Mayeux, XXXX-XXXX, p. 4 (La.6/21/02), (quoting Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 144 , 116 S.Ct.
  • State v. Corbitt 917 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    State v. Mayeux, XXXX-XXXX, p. 4 (La.6/21/02), (quoting Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 144 , 116 S.Ct.
  • State v. Vidal 901 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    Commenting on this section in State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), , the Louisiana Supreme Court explained "the legislature has clearly stated its intention to embrace treatment measures in preference to incarceration."
  • State v. Pugh 906 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    State v. Mayeux, XXXX-XXXX, pp. 5-8 (La.6/21/02), -531 .
  • State v. Simms 892 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    See, State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), -529 .
  • State v. Campbell 877 So. 2d 112 La. 2004
    DISCUSSION Recently, this court addressed the amendments made by the Legislature to the sentencing provisions for third or subsequent DWI offenses in State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), .
  • State v. Parker 871 So. 2d 317 La. 2004
    While it found the legal principles on which Sugasti was based "unassailable" when applied to the individual crimes addressed in Act 403, the court of appeal found the instant case is more analogous to State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), , which was rendered on the same day as the Sugasti decision.
  • State v. Blanchard 861 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    State v. Mayeux, 01-3195, p. 2 (La.6/21/02), .
  • State v. Williams 862 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    In reaching this decision, the First Circuit first differentiated their case from the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in State v. Sugasti, 01-3407 (La.6/21/02), , and analogized Parker's situation to the one in State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), .
  • State v. Bates 859 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    15:529.1 in existence at the time the defendant committed the instant offense, rather than the version in existence at the time he was convicted of the third felony, citing State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), , in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the version of the DWI statute in effect at the sentencing of the offense applied because the statute provided for its application "upon conviction" rather than upon commission of the third felony.
  • State v. Bell 855 So. 2d 946 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    In accordance with the ruling of the supreme court in State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.06/21/02), , we vacate defendant's sentence and remand the matter for resentencing.
  • State v. Byrd 850 So. 2d 1128 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    The frightening reality is that the remainder of this sentence of imprisonment must be suspended, by legislative mandate, and the offender is to undergo substance abuse treatment as per State v. *1129 Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), .
  • State v. Decrevel 847 So. 2d 1197 La. 2003
    See State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), .
  • State v. Orange 845 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    The recent case of State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), , applied the penalty provision of the 2001 amendment, by 2001 La.
  • State v. Self 842 So. 2d 1240 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    *1244 Based on the ruling of the Supreme Court of Louisiana in State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), , we are constrained to vacate the sentence imposed and remand for resentencing.
  • State v. Vu 846 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    He relies upon State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), .
  • State v. Feaster 840 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Regarding the DWI sentence, however, the trial court imposed sentence on June 10, 2002, immediately before the ruling of the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), .
  • State v. Parker 845 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    This application of the habitual offender statute is consistent with the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), , which was rendered on the same day as the Sugasti decision.
  • State v. Lokey 840 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    14:98E(1)(a) and State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.6/21/02), .
  • State v. Eppinette 838 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    See State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La.06/21/02), .