DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

84 citing documents.

  • State v. Alexander 119 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State of Louisiana v. Michael James Lacour La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    11/27/07), the supreme court stated: [T]he starting point in the interpretation of any statute is the language of the statute itself.
  • State v. Austin 113 So. 3d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    11/27/07), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that LSA-R.S.
  • State of Louisiana v. Brandon Newton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    State v. Shaw, 06-2467, p. 14 (La.11/27/07)
  • State v. Newton 129 So. 3d 11 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Shaw, 06-2467, p. 14 (La.11/27/07), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Michael Wayne Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State v. Jones 105 So. 3d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    State v. Shaw, 06-2467 (La.11/27/07), .
  • Smith v. State 84 So. 3d 487 La. 2012
    In State v. Shaw, 06-2467 (La.11/27/07), , this court examined classification of a multiple offender as it relates to enhancing a sentence under the habitual offender statute.
  • State of Louisiana v. Brandon Dale Allen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    11/27/07), -44, 1245 (footnote omitted), the supreme court found that the trial court did not err in enhancing all five of defendant‟s sentences based upon his adjudication as a third felony offender, stating: As we have explained, the habitual offender statute was enacted “as a deterren
  • State v. Allen 79 So. 3d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    In State v. Shaw, 06-2467, pp. 17-18, 20 (La.11/27/07), -44, 1245 (footnote omitted), the supreme court found that the trial court did not err in enhancing all five of defendant’s sentences based upon his adjudication as a third felony offender, stating: As we have explained, the habitual offender statute was enacted “as a deterrent and a warning to first offenders an
  • State v. Dowell 75 So. 3d 967 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    See Dowell, unpub., 09-0260, pp. 5-6, , citing State v. Shaw, 06-2467, p. 20 (La.11/27/07), (sentences from multiple convictions obtained on the same date may be enhanced under the Habitual Offender Law, La.
  • State v. Bobo 77 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    The supreme court held in State v. Shaw, 2006-2467 (La.11/27/07), , that all sentences for convictions on the same date for a single course of criminal conduct are subject to enhancement under the Habitual Offender Law, overruling State ex rel.
  • State of Louisiana v. Ricky Joseph Langley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    11/27/07), sets forth the applicable law when interpreting a statute, explaining, in pertinent part: [W]e begin our analysis with the proposition that the starting point in the interpretation of any statute is the language of the statute itself.
  • State v. Langley 61 So. 3d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Shaw, 06-2467 (La.11/27/07), , sets forth the applicable law when interpreting a statute, explaining, in pertinent part: *777 [W]e begin our analysis with the proposition that the starting point in the interpretation of any statute is the language of the statute itself.
  • State v. Morgan 63 So. 3d 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    In the fourth appeal, this Court cited State v. Shaw, 06-2467 (La.11/27/07), , wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that 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.
  • State v. Kumar 58 So. 3d 544 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    14:3; State v. Shaw, 2006-2467 (La.11/27/07), ; State v. Armstard, supra.
  • State v. Watts 41 So. 3d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    In State v. Shaw, 06-2467 (La.11/27/07), , the Louisiana Supreme Court summarized the pertinent law relating to the interpretation of criminal statutes: [W]e begin our analysis with the proposition that the starting point in the interpretation of any statute is the language of the statute itself.
  • State v. LANDOR 34 So. 3d 1166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    11/27/07), -45 ; State v. Pearson, 03-652 (La.
  • State v. Morgan 34 So. 3d 909 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    15:529.1(B) to provide that “[m]ultiple convictions obtained on the same day prior to October 19, 2004, shall be counted as one conviction for the purpose of this Section.” State v. Shaw, 06-2467, p. 19 (La.11/27/07), -45 .
  • State v. Montgomery 31 So. 3d 560 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    The supreme court in State v. Shaw, 06-2467 (La.11/27/07), , held that a previous conviction could be used as a predicate offense to again enhance a defendant’s sentence as a second felony offender.
  • State v. London 28 So. 3d 1150 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2009
    15:529.1 has required that “for sentence enhancement purposes, the subsequent felony must be committed after the predicate conviction or convictions.” The Louisiana Supreme Court reiterated this requirement in State v. Shaw, 06-2467, p. 13 (La.11/27/07), .
  • Foti v. Holliday 27 So. 3d 813 La. 2009
    State v. Shaw, 06-2467, p. 15 (La.11/27/07), .
  • State v. Dowell 17 So. 3d 523 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
    11/27/07), (sentences from multiple convictions obtained on the same date may be enhanced under the Habitual Offender Law, La.
  • State v. Cass 17 So. 3d 486 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    defense responds that: • the starting point in the interpretation of the habitual offender statute is the language of the statute itself; • the purpose of the statute is to deter and punish recidivism; • the supreme court has already noted that the armed robbery and the attempted rape were “inseparably intertwined,” State v. Cass, supra, 356 So.2d at 939; • State v. Shaw, 2006-2467 (La.11/27/07), , is inapplicable, in that it dealt with enhancement of the penalties for multiple subsequent convic
  • State v. Harvey 12 So. 3d 496 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
    11/27/07), , appellant could be sentenced as a multiple offender on both convictions.
  • State v. Crosby 6 So. 3d 1281 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    State v. Shaw, 06-2467 (La.11/27/07), , citing Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 51-53 , 107 S.Ct.
  • State v. Warren 2 So. 3d 523 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    2d Cir.8/23/06), , writ granted, 2006-2467 (La.5/18/07), , affirmed, 2006-2467 (La.11/27/07), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Ronnie White-Hardison La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    11/27/07), : An accused’s right to testify is a fundamental right of constitutional dimension.
  • State v. WHITE-HARDISON 998 So. 2d 939 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    The supreme court discussed a defendant's right to testify in State v. Shaw, 06-2467, pp. 21-22 (La.11/27/07), , 1246: An accused's right to testify is a fundamental right of constitutional dimension.
  • Overruled State v. Baylor 998 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    State v. Shaw, 06-2467, p. 20 (La.11/27/07), .
  • State v. Wright 997 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    11/27/2007), , we note that there is no statutory bar that would have prevented the trial court from applying the habitual offender law in Wright's sentencing for more than one conviction obtained on the same date.
  • State v. Armstard 991 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    State v. Shaw, 2006-2467 (La.11/27/07), ; Theriot v. Midland Risk Ins.
  • State v. Robbins 986 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    Three months after the habitual offender sentences were imposed, the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Shaw, 06-2467 (La.11/27/07), , held that the Habitual Offender Law did not bar enhancement of more than one conviction obtained on the same date and arising out *835 of a single criminal episode or course of conduct, overruling State ex rel.
  • State v. Boyd 978 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008