2002-K-0323 Precedential Processed

State v. Wilson

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed September 13, 2002 · 827 So. 2d 1121

Cited by

State of Louisiana Versus Joachim J. Cotton La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Jordan D. Johnson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana Versus Lanard A. Lavigne La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana Versus Argentina Mesa La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Allen Joseph Morehead La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State v. Morehead 239 So. 3d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Christopher Lance Washburn La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Washburn 206 So. 3d 1143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Authier 92 So. 3d 494 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Michael Jason Miller La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Miller 49 So. 3d 1028 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State of Louisiana v. Deanna Gaspard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010

all 20 citing documents »

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Arnold 801 So. 2d 408
In re Ranel 770 So. 2d 332
State v. Arnold 816 So. 2d 289
State v. Doughty 379 So. 2d 1088

Opinion text

827 So.2d 1121 (2002) STATE of Louisiana v. Eugene WILSON. No. 2002-K-0323. Supreme Court of Louisiana. September 13, 2002. Writ denied. JOHNSON, J., concurs with reasons. JOHNSON, J., Concurring in the denial of the writ application. In reaching its conclusion on the issue of whether defendant's constitutional rights against double jeopardy was violated, the court of appeal relied, in part, on its decision in State v. Arnold, 99-0742 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/11/01) , 801 So.2d 408 . This analysis is flawed, as that appellate court holding was reversed twice by this Court. See State v. Arnold, 99-0742 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/25/00) , ___ So.2d ___, rev'd and remanded, State v. Arnold, 00-0570 (La.10/6/00), 770 So.2d 332 , following remand, State v. Arnold, 99-0742 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/11/01) , 801 So.2d 408 , rev'd State v. Arnold, 01-1399 (La.4/12/02), 816 So.2d 289 . However, I agree with the court of appeal's ultimate conclusion that the defendant's convictions for forgery and theft violated double jeopardy, primarily relying on this court's holding in the analogous case of State v. Doughty, 379 So.2d 1088 (La.1980) (simultaneous theft and forgery convictions constituted double jeopardy).