Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Joseph, 847 So. 2d 1196.

50 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Derrick Jawond Cheley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
5/16/03), failure of the defendant to specify the pre-plea issues for review does not absolutely preclude his ability to seek review.
State of Louisiana v. Julieanne Perales A/K/A Julianne Perales La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
5/16/03), (per curiam ); State v. King, 99-1348 (La.
State Of Louisiana v. Patrick Gilton La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
5/ 16/ 03) , ( per curiam) .
State Of Louisiana v. Shawn Becnel La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
5/ 16/ 03), ( per curiam).
State Of Louisiana v. Aaron Wayne Bush La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
5/ 16/ 03), per curiam).
State of Louisiana v. Jeremy Rachal La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2020
5/16/03), failure of the defendant to specify the pre-plea issues for review does not absolutely preclude his ability to seek review.
State of Louisiana v. Ray Donald Brister, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana Versus Kevin Barker La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
State v. Johnson 264 So. 3d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
5/16/03), ( per curiam ); State v. King , 99-1348 (La.
State v. Overstreet 263 So. 3d 1241 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
5/16/03), ( per curiam ).
State v. Williams 254 So. 3d 1260 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2018
5/16/03), ( per curiam ); State v. Sierra , 11-161 (La.
State v. Kruebbe 244 So. 3d 867 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2018
5/16/03), (per curiam); State v. King , 99-1348 (La.
State v. Taylor 236 So. 3d 1281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Shiell 204 So. 3d 1213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Pounds 166 So. 3d 1037 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Nonetheless, the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that "[a] defendant's failure to specify which pre-trial rulings he desires to reserve for appeal as part of a guilty plea entered pursuant to [Crosby ], may limit the scope of appellate review but should not preclude review altogether.” See State v. Joseph, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), (per cu-riam).
State v. Jones 128 So. 3d 436 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Compare State v. Joseph, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), (per cu-riam) ("[ajbsent a detailed specification of which adverse pre-trial rulings the defendant reserved for appellate review as part of his guilty plea, an appellate court should presume that the trial court permitted a Crosby reservation no broader than necessary to effectuate the underlying purpose of cond
State v. Turner 118 So. 3d 1186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Joseph, 08-315 (La.5/16/03); (per curiam).
State v. Kinard 105 So. 3d 974 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Joseph, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), (per curiam).
State v. Clement 101 So. 3d 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Joseph, 03-315, p. 1 (La.5/16/03), (per curiam).
State v. Harris 98 So. 3d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See also State v. Joseph, 03-315, p. 2 (La.5/16/03), (per curiam) (quoting Crosby, 338 So.2d at 591 ) (Crosby was designed “to preserve review of evidentiary rulings which ‘go to the heart of the prosecution’s case’ that a defendant would otherwise waive by entering an unqualified guilty plea”).
State v. Sierra 83 So. 3d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Joseph, 03-315, p. 1 (La.5/16/03), .
State v. Lewis 75 So. 3d 495 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Joseph, 03-315, p. 1 (La.5/16/03), (per curiam ).
State v. Ramsey 60 So. 3d 36 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The State argues that jj)ecause the appellant failed, at the time he entered his guilty plea pursuant to *40 State v. Crosby, to specify which pre-trial rulings he desired to preserve for appeal, this Court is limited to a review of eviden-tiary rulings which “go to the heart of the prosecution’s case.” State v. Joseph, O3-315, p. 2 (La.5/16/03), .
State v. Grant 52 So. 3d 149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Joseph, 03-315, p. 1 (La.5/16/03), (per curiam).
State v. Richardson 33 So. 3d 910 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Joseph, 03-315, p. 1 (La.5/16/03), (per curiam).
State v. Richardson 33 So. 3d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Joseph, 03-315, p. 1 (La.5/16/03), (per curiam).
State v. Fontenberry 27 So. 3d 904 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Compare State v. Joseph, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), (per curiam) (“[ajbsent a detailed specification of which adverse pre-trial rulings the defendant reserved for appellate review as part of his guilty plea, an appellate court should presume that the trial court permitted a Crosby reservation no broader than necessary to effectuate the underlying purpose of condi
State v. Smith 19 So. 3d 509 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Joseph, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), (per curiam).
State v. Johnson 3 So. 3d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Joseph, 03-0315, pp. 1-2 (La.5/16/03), -97 .
State v. Johnson 994 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Joseph, 03-315, pp. 1-2 (La.5/16/03), -1197 (Per Curiam) (in which the Supreme Court explained that the types of rulings that should be reviewed in the absence of an express designation include the denial of a motion to suppress evidence or a confession and would exclude rulings that affect the conduct of the trial, but do not substantially relate to
State v. Cummings 983 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
*251 State v. Joseph, 03-0315, pp. 1-2 (La.5/16/03), -97 .
State of Louisiana v. Tihe D. Cummings La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Smith 982 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
See State v. Joseph, 03-315, (La.5/16/03), (per curiam).
State v. Jones 975 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
See, State v. Joseph, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), .
State v. Copelin 974 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
In State v. Joseph, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), , the defendant failed to specify which pretrial rulings he desired to reserve on appeal as part of the Crosby plea.
State v. Anthony 971 So. 2d 1219 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
However, in State v. Joseph, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), -97, the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that, in such cases, the reviewing court could nevertheless review the trial court's evidentiary ruling on a motion to suppress: Absent a detailed specification of which adverse pre-trial rulings the defendant reserved for appellate review as part of his guilty plea, an appellate
State v. Williams 970 So. 2d 1130 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
In State v. Joseph, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), (per curiam), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a defendant's failure to specify which pretrial rulings he wishes to reserve for appeal as part of a guilty plea entered under Crosby may limit the scope of appellate review but does not preclude review altogether.
State v. Smith 960 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d at 586; see also State v. Joseph, 2003-315 (La.05/16/03), .
State v. Floyd 946 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
5th Cir.1990), writ denied, (1991), (finding "due process may be offended both when there is a promise which is later broken and when the defendant justifiably believes that there is a promise which is later broken.") In State v. Joseph, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that a defendant's failure to specify which pre-trial rulings he desires to reserve on appeal as part of a Crosby plea should not totally preclude appellate review.
State v. Jackson 919 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
In State v. Joseph, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the appellate review available to a defendant that pleads guilty under Crosby, but does not specify which pre-trial rulings he desires to reserve for appeal.
State v. Lagarde 917 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
See also, State v. Joseph, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), .
State v. Colar 893 So. 2d 152 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
5 Cir. 01/14/03) , , writ granted, 03-315 (La.05/16/03), , aff'd on remand, 02-717 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Briant Keith Colar La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
05/16/03), aff’d on remand, 02-717 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Tommy Cloud La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Cloud 893 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
See also State v. Joseph, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), .
State v. Jackson 889 So. 2d 1071 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
See State v. Joseph, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), .
State v. Boss 887 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Joseph, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), (per curiam).
State v. Johnson 864 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
5 Cir. 1/14/03) , , writ granted, other grounds, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), .
State v. Wilturner 858 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
5 Cir. 1/14/03) , , writ granted, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), , aff'd on remand, 02-717 (La.App.
State v. Cooley 857 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Joseph, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by