Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Shaw, 969 So. 2d 1233.

84 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Darrin D. Jones La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2026
State of Louisiana v. Dequincy Jamel Lewis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2026
11/27/07), –47 (footnote omitted) (emphasis in original).
State Of Louisiana v. Garic Peter Aleman La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana v. Gary Allen La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana v. Christopher Raymond Diano La. 2025
State of Louisiana Versus Derwin Walker La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State Of Louisiana v. Percy Stalls La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana Versus Patricia Jefferson La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana Versus Lance E. Douglas La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Kendrick Nelson Shepherd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
11/27/07), –47 (footnote omitted) (emphasis in original).
State of Louisiana in the Interest of M.H. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State Of Louisiana v. Demario G. Warren La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
11/ 27/ 07), ( there is no 1 See Ramos v. Louisiana, _ U. S. _, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.
State Of Louisiana v. Christine Jackson La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana v. Marlin Devary Demouchet La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
11/27/07), -44 (footnote omitted) (alteration in original), in support of its contention that it is appropriate to consider a defendant’s prior convictions at a habitual offender proceeding: First, the court failed to give effect to the clear and unambiguous language of the statute.
State of Louisiana v. Junius Robillard La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
State v. Shaw, 2006- 2467 ( La 11/ 27/ 07)
State of Louisiana v. Joseph M. Bryant La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2020
11/27/07), the predicate convictions were to be counted as one conviction because they were obtained on the same date and prior to October 19, 2004.
State of Louisiana v. McKartney Young La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
11/27/07), the supreme court overruled its decision in State ex rel.
State v. Young 271 So. 3d 422 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
11/27/07), , the supreme court overruled its decision in State ex rel.
State v. Rathore 262 So. 3d 1099 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
State v. Alexcee 262 So. 3d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Dorsey 260 So. 3d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
11/27/07), , 1243, quoting State v. George , 218 La.
State of Louisiana v. Adrian A. Dorsey A/K/A Adrian Anton Dorsey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
11/27/07), discussed the purpose for the enactment of the habitual offender law “as a deterrent and a warning to first offenders and as a protection to society by removing the habitual offender from its midst.” The Shaw court, quoting State v. Johnson, 97- 1906, p.
State v. Meadows 247 So. 3d 1018 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
State v. Heins 245 So. 3d 1165 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
11/27/07), , and citations therein.
State v. Logue 216 So. 3d 1140 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
11/27/07), , quoting La.
State of Louisiana v. Channing R. Gray 218 So. 3d 40 La. 2017
State v. Brooks 210 So. 3d 514 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
11/27/07), (citing State v. Johnson, 03-2993 (La.
State v. Jago 209 So. 3d 1078 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
11/27/07), (citing State v. Johnson, 03-2993 (La.
State v. Grant 198 So. 3d 1219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4 Cir. 6/16/10) , (citing State v. Shaw, 06-2467, p. 19, (La.11/27/07), ).
Richard Bryant Logan and Carrie Logan v. Dr. Donald Paul Schwab, Jr. 193 So. 3d 118 La. 2016
11/27/07), n.8 (evaluating the claim that a judge improperly inquired into whether a defendant at a criminal trial had considered whether to testify, this court observed: “In fact, the record is devoid of a contemporaneous objection to the trial court’s questions, indicating that, at the time it occurred, the inquiry w
Louisiana Board of Ethics In re Great Southern Dredging, Inc. 195 So. 3d 631 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
However, the rule of lenity does not require “such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rule of statutory construction, which purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute.” State v. Shaw, 06-2467 (La.11/27/07), .
State of Louisiana v. Jamarlon W. Pierre La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
11/27/07), for the proposition that there was no prohibition against the trial court’s enhancement of both convictions.
State v. Pierre 186 So. 3d 361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
He cites State v. Shaw, 06-2467 (La.11/27/07), , for the proposition that there was no prohibition against the trial court’s enhancement of both convictions.
State of Louisiana v. Robert Glen Coleman 188 So. 3d 174 La. 2016
State v. Jones 178 So. 3d 1075 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Significantly, in State v. Shaw, 2006-2467 (La.11/27/07), , the supreme 'Court recognized that the only requirement in La.
State v. Payne 171 So. 3d 348 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Shaw, 06-2467 (La.11/27/07), .
State of Louisiana v. Jamarlon W. Pierre La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Pierre 165 So. 3d 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
[,] and the defendant is hereby sentenced to serve a term of life in prison, without possibility of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.” Louisiana jurisprudence interprets the habitual offender statute as containing “no prohibition against enhancing multiple sentences obtained on the same date arising out of a single criminal act or episode.” State v. Shaw, 06-2467, p. 20 (La.11/27/07), .
State v. Jones 165 So. 3d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Hagans 151 So. 3d 719 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
11/27/07), (The amendment, 2005 La.
State v. Heine 140 So. 3d 278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
2 See also State v. Shaw, 06-2467 (La.11/27/07), ; State v. Gilbert, 99-315 (La.App.
State v. Carter 128 So. 3d 1108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
11/27/07), , in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held that LSA-R.S.
State v. Augustine 125 So. 3d 1203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. Shaw, 2006-2467 (La.11/27/07), , the Louisiana Supreme Court overruled it previous decisions in State ex rel.
State v. Davis 121 So. 3d 1207 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Shaw, 06-2467 (La.11/27/07), .
State v. Mercadel 120 So. 3d 872 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Shaw, 2006-2467, p. 20 (La.11/27/07), (“There is no statutory bar to applying the habitual offender law in sentencing for more than one conviction obtained on the same date, whether the convictions result from separate felonies committed at separate times or arise out of a single criminal act or episode.”) Moreover, the habitual offender hearing tra
State v. Taylor 118 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
art. 572(B) is not a criminal penal statute, but instead is a criminal procedure statute, the following statutory construction rules cited by the court in State v. Shaw, 06-2467, pp. 14-15 (La.11/27/07), , 1242 are helpful in interpreting it: ...
State of Louisiana v. Anthony Daye La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Christopher B. Miller La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Miller 114 So. 3d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Shaw, 06-2467 (La.11/27/07), .
State v. Aulph 114 So. 3d 610 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
2 Cir. 4/8/09), ; State v. Shaw, 06-2467 (La.11/27/07), .