Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Muhammad, 875 So. 2d 45.

37 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Jeremy Dillion La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2026
State Of Louisiana v. Glen Thompkins La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
5/ 25/ 04), State v. Broussard, 416 So.
State of Louisiana v. Allen Joseph Morehead La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
5/25/04), n.9 (wherein the supreme court explained within the habitual offender context that “the trial judge has the right to take judicial cognizance of any prior proceeding which is part of the same case he has previously tried.”); State v. 8 Brown, 11-1656 (La.
State v. Morehead 239 So. 3d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
5/25/04), , 49 n.9 (wherein the supreme court explained within the habitual offender context that "the trial judge has the right to take judicial cognizance of any prior proceeding which is part of the same case he has previously tried."); State v.Brown , 11-1656 (La.
State v. Simmons 237 So. 3d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
5/25/04), , 49 n.9 ("[A] trial judge has the right to take judicial cognizance of any prior proceedings which is part of the same case he previously tried.").
State of Louisiana v. Corei K. Guidry 221 So. 3d 815 La. 2017
5/25/04), (Johnson, J., dissenting) (within days of completing his original net term of four years imprisonment for access device fraud, essentially “identity theft,” the state filed a habitual offender bill and defendant was adjudged a recidivist and resentenced to life imprisonment, a sentence possibly more cruel than the
State v. Ross 207 So. 3d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Ellis 190 So. 3d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
15:529.1 D(l)(a) provides that a multiple bill may be filed “at any time, either after conviction or sentence.” Although the statute does not prescribe a time within which the multiple bill must be filed, this court has made a determination that ‘“the district attorney must file the habitual offender bill within a reasonable time.’” State v. Muhammad, 2003-2991, p. 14 (La.5/25/04), ().
State v. Cureaux 165 So. 3d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
of Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 874, which requires that criminal sentences be imposed “without unreasonable delay,” and the defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial, “the multiple offender bill must be filed within a reasonable time after the necessary information is available to the appropriate district attorney.” State v. Muhammad, 2003-2991, p. 14 (La.5/25/04), *231 ().
State v. Ellison 168 So. 3d 862 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Muhammad, 03-2991 (La.5/25/04), .
State v. Richardson 155 So. 3d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 15:529.1 D(1)(a) provides that a multiple bill may be filed “at any time, either after conviction or sentence.” According to State v. Muhammad, 03-2991, p. 14 (La.5/25/04), , “[although the statute does not prescribe a time within which the bill must be filed, this court has made a determination that the district attorney must file the habitual offender bill ‘within a | ¡^reasonable time.’ ” ().
State v. Bailey 152 So. 3d 1056 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
In State v. Muhammad, 2003-2991 (La.5/25/04), , the defendant was adjudicated a fourth-felony offender; however, the court of appeal set aside the adjudication and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
State v. Dukes 121 So. 3d 1256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Muhammad, 03-2991 (La.5/25/04), .
State of Louisiana v. Ernest D'Wayne Derryberry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
5/25/04), the rule was that the adjudication and sentencing of a defendant as a multiple offender had to be completed prior to defendant’s completion of the underlying sentence.
State v. Newman 107 So. 3d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Id; see also State v. Muhammad, 2003-2991, p. 14 (La.5/25/04), .
State v. Davis 94 So. 3d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Muhammad, 03-2991 (La.5/25/04), .
State v. Buckley 88 So. 3d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Muhammad, 2003-2991, p. 14 (La.5/25/04), .
State of Louisiana v. Steven Mark Marc" Anderson " La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
5/25/04), establishes that delay claims must be analyzed on a case- by-case basis, the defendant argues in this assignment of error that there was an unreasonable delay between the original sentencing and his resentencing as an habitual offender.
State v. Anderson 48 So. 3d 1202 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Assignment of Error Number Three While acknowledging that the supreme court in State v. Muhammad, 03-2991 (La.5/25/04), , establishes that delay claims must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, the defendant argues in this assignment of error that there was an unreasonable delay between the original sentencing and his resentencing as an habitual offender.
State v. Rainey 43 So. 3d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Muhammad, 2003-2991, p. 14 (La.5/25/04), .
State v. Jones 35 So. 3d 1162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Muhammad, 03-2991, p. 14 (La.5/25/04), ; State v. Torres, 05-260, p. 6 (La.App.
State v. Thurman 30 So. 3d 1185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Cottonham 27 So. 3d 320 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. Muhammad, 2003-2991 (La.5/25/04), .
State v. Timmons 22 So. 3d 1074 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. Muhammad, 03-2991 (La.5/25/04), fn.
State v. Rios 7 So. 3d 832 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. Muhammad, 03-2991 (La.05/25/04), ; State v. Toney, 02-0992 (La.04/09/03), .
State v. Zachary 995 So. 2d 631 La. 2008
State v. Jones 998 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Muhammad, 03-2991, 14 (La.5/25/04), -55 .
State v. Young 996 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Muhammad, 03-2991 (La.5/25/04), .
State v. Lay 986 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
5/25/04), , held that there is no bright-line deadline by which the habitual offender proceeding must be completed.
State v. Severin 985 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Muhammad, 03-2991, p. 14 (La.5/25/04), .
State v. Gauthier 978 So. 2d 1161 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
In that case, State v. Muhammed, 03-2991, pp. 14-15 (La.5/24/04), -55 , the court stated: Although the statute does not prescribe a time within which the bill must be filed, this court has made a determination that the district attorney must file the habitual offender bill "within a reasonable time."
State v. Zachary 973 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
State v. Dauzart 960 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Muhammad, 03-2991 (La.5/25/04), .
State v. Torres 919 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Muhammad, 03-2991 (La.5/25/04), .
State v. Collins 910 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
However, on July 20, 2004, in writ number 04-KH-850, this court vacated that ruling and ordered the trial court to hold a hearing pursuant to State v. Muhammad, 03-2991 (La.5/25/04), .
State v. Cosey 913 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
[6] State v. Muhammad 2003-2991 (La.5/25/04), .
State v. Guillard 902 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
See, State v. Muhammad, 03-2991 (La.5/25/04), ; State v. Conrad, 94-232 (La.App.