Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Batiste, 939 So. 2d 1245.

70 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Gary Allen La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
10/17/06), (quoting State v. Love, 2000-3347, p. 14 (La.
State of Louisiana Versus Eddie J Richards La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
10/17/06), State v. Dawson, 19-1612 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Marlin Devary Demouchet La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
10/17/06), -51, the supreme court provided the following analysis regarding a defendant’s constitutional right to speedy trial and concluded that the defendant’s right was not violated: 15 The constitutional right to a speedy trial is imposed upon the states by the Due Proces
State Of Louisiana v. Walter Johnson La. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Morgan Gray McGough La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
10/17/06), State v. Smith, 99-0606 (La.
State Of Louisiana v. Terance Roshell Dawson La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
State Of Louisiana v. Laura Amanda Kozma La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
State Of Louisiana v. Walter Johnson La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Fred Reimonenq La. 2019
10/17/06), State v. Love, 00-3347, (La.
State v. Leonard 262 So. 3d 378 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
10/17/06), , 1249 ; State v. Brown, 11-0947, p. 4 (La.App.
State v. Cinquemano 257 So. 3d 234 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
10/17/06), , 1249 ; State v. Scott , 2006-1610, p. 6 (La.
State v. Brown 240 So. 3d 284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State of Louisiana v. William Felix Vail La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
10/17/06), the supreme court discussed the right to a speedy trial: The constitutional right to a speedy trial is imposed upon the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
State v. Vail 236 So. 3d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
10/17/06), , 1250, the supreme court discussed the right to a speedy trial: The constitutional right to a speedy trial is imposed upon the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
State v. Papizan 256 So. 3d 1091 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
10/17/06), , 1249 ; State v. Love , 00-3347, pp. 2-3 (La.
State v. Gourgues 204 So. 3d 1051 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Smith 204 So. 3d 1035 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Brown 193 So. 3d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), ; State v. Batiste, 05-1571 (La.10/17/06), .
State v. Johnson 178 So. 3d 1140 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Typically, appellate review of a district court’s.ruling on,a motion to qqash is accomplished under an abuse of discretion *1144 standard; see, e.g., State v. Batiste, 2005-1571 (La.10/17/06), .
State v. Jones 178 So. 3d 1112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Batiste, 2005-1571, p. 5 (La.10/17/06), , citing, Love ; 2000-3347, p. 14, 847 So.2d at 1209 .
State v. Jackson 154 So. 3d 722 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 10/09/13), (citing State v. Batiste, 05-1571, p. 9 (La.10/17/06), ); State v. Smith, 99-0606, p. 3 (La.7/6/00), ; State v. M.C., 10-1107, p. 10 (La.App.
State v. Pierre 146 So. 3d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
“The constitutional right to a speedy trial is imposed upon the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” State v. Batiste, 2005-1571, pp. 6-7 (La.10/17/06), (citing Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 223 , 87 S.Ct.
State v. Dixon 146 So. 3d 662 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 10/09/13), -39 (citing State v. Batiste, 2005-1571, p. 9 (La.10/17/06), ; State v. Smith, 99-0606, p. 3 (La.7/6/00), .
State v. Franklin 147 So. 3d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
[/‘The granting of a defendant’s motion to quash the bill of information is a discretionary ruling by the trial court, and absent abuse, the ruling should not be disturbed by the appellate court.” State v. Batiste, 2005-1571, p. 9 (La.10/17/06), .
State v. Martin 141 So. 3d 933 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Sanders , 12-409 at p. 9, 104 So.3d at 626 -27 (citing Love , 00-3347 at p. 6, 847 So.2d at 1204 ; State v. Batiste, 05-1571, p. 8 (La.10/17/06), ; State v. Scott, 06-1610, p. 6, (La.App.
State v. Magee 140 So. 3d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
“The granting of a defendant’s motion to quash the bill of information is a discretionary ruling by the trial court, and absent abuse, the ruling should not be disturbed by the appellate court.” State v. Batiste, 2005-1571, p. 2 (La.10/17/06), (citation omitted).
State v. Thomas 138 So. 3d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Batiste, 05-1571, pp. 8-9 (La.10/17/06), .
State v. Gregory 137 So. 3d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
8 See State v. Batiste, 05-1571, pp. 8-9 (La.10/17/06), .
State v. Quinn 136 So. 3d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Love, 2000-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), ; State v. Batiste, 2005-1571, p. 9 (La.10/17/06), .
State v. Anderson 132 So. 3d 1265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 2/11/09), -17 , (quoting State v. Batiste, 05-1571, pp. 6-7 (La.10/17/06), ).
State v. Lawson 129 So. 3d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), ; State v. Batiste, 05-1571, p. 9 (La.10/17/06), .
State v. Hall 127 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
App. 1 Cir. 12/22/10), ), aptly stated: Although a trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash will generally not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion, see State v. Batiste, 05-1571, p. 9 (La.10/17/06), , a trial court’s legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review, see State v. Smith, 99-0606, p. 3 (La.7/6/00), .
State v. Jones 107 So. 3d 1285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Batiste, 05-1571, p. 7 (La.10/17/06), .
State v. Mathews 109 So. 3d 984 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Batiste, 05-1571, p. 7 (La.10/17/06), .
State v. Bell 106 So. 3d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
10/17/06), ; State v. Lee, 11-0892 (La.App.
State v. Sanders 104 So. 3d 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Batiste, 05-1571, p. 5 (La.10/17/06), , citing, Love , 00-3347, p. 14, 847 So.2d at 1209 .
State of Louisiana v. Robert Daniel Wilkins La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Wilkins 94 So. 3d 983 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Batiste, 05-1571, pp. 6-7 (La.10/17/06), .
State v. Keeling 96 So. 3d 596 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
In State v. Batiste, 2005-1571 (La.10/17/06), , the Supreme Court held that “[a trial] court’s resolution of motions to quash in cases where the district attorney entered a nolle prosequi and later reinstituted charges should be decided on a cases-by-case basis.” Id., 2005-1571 at 5, 939 So.2d at 1249 (citation omitted).
State v. Williams 89 So. 3d 422 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
In State v. Batiste, 2005-1571, pp. 5-6 (La.10/17/06), , the Supreme Court addressed an argument similar to that of Defendant Williams and found that it had no merit.
State v. Banks 92 So. 3d 464 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Batiste, 2005-1571 (La.10/17/06), , is precisely on point.
State v. Brown 88 So. 3d 662 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
4 Cir. 1/18/12), (citing State v. Batiste, 05-1571, p. 5 (La.10/17/06), ).
State v. Lee 80 So. 3d 1292 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Batiste, 2005-1571, p. 5 (La.10/17/06), (citation omitted).
State v. Hayes 75 So. 3d 8 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
See State v. Batiste, 05-1571, p. 6 (La.10/17/06), .
State v. Dillon 72 So. 3d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), ; State v. Batiste, 05-1571 (La.10/17/06), .
State v. King 60 So. 3d 615 La. 2011
See, e.g., State v. Batiste, 05-1571 (La.10/17/06), ; State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), ; State v. Brown, 05-1146 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Ricky Joseph Langley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Batiste, 05-1571, pp. 6-7 (La.10/17/06)
State v. Langley 61 So. 3d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Batiste, 05-1571, pp. 6-7 (La.10/17/06), .
State v. M.C. 60 So. 3d 1264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Although a trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash will generally not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion, see *1271 State v. Batiste, 05-1571, p. 9 (La.10/17/06), , a trial court’s legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review, see State v. Smith, 99-0606, p. 3 (La.7/6/00), .
State of Louisiana v. C.W. W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by