Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Dick, 951 So. 2d 124.

61 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. William Wayne Lee, Jr. La. 2023
1/26/07), ] to the extent we resolved the tension between these provisions by finding that the only avenue to gain the benefit of the more lenient penalty provisions retroactively is by application to the Risk Review Panel at that time (subsequently amended to authorize 32 would grant reh’g).
State of Louisiana Versus Johnny Lee La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana Versus Emile Pierce La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
1/26/07), defendant filed a pro se motion to correct illegal sentence in the district court.1 In 1 By this time, the original sentencing judge who had presided over the trial had retired (“the trial judge”), and there was a different district court judge who resentenced defendant (“the district judge”).
State of Louisiana Versus Emile Pierce La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
1/26/07), defendant filed a pro se motion to correct illegal sentence thereunder in the district court.
State v. Mathis 268 So. 3d 1160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State ex rel. Esteen v. State 239 So. 3d 266 La. 2018
1/26/07), , 132-33, abrogated by State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. John Esteen v. State of Louisiana 239 So. 3d 233 La. 2018
State v. Rouser 158 So. 3d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
1/26/07), ("When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written.”) Since the force or violence used against James and Lanoix did not result in a homicide, the justification provision of La.
State v. Monroe 156 So. 3d 40 La. 2014
15:308(B) mandates that the more lenient sentencing provision of the Habitual Offender Law shall apply to relator’s sentence, and his claim that his sentence is illegal, entitling him to resentencing, appears meritorious, assuming that the decision in State v. Dick, 06-2223 (La.1/26/07), , including its dicta, has been superseded.
State v. Monroe 156 So. 3d 41 La. 2014
15:308(B) mandates that the more lenient sentencing provision of the Habitual Offender Law shall apply to relator’s sentence, and his claim that his sentence is illegal, entitling him to resentencing, appears meritorious, assuming that the decision in State v. Dick, 06-2223 (La.1/26/07), , including its dicta, has been superseded.
State v. White 156 So. 3d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Dick, 06-2223 (La.1/26/07), -33 .
State ex rel. Nicks v. State 131 So. 3d 837 La. 2014
See State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
State ex rel. Joseph v. State 131 So. 3d 837 La. 2014
See State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
State ex rel. Banks v. State 131 So. 3d 35 La. 2014
See State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
State ex rel. Lewis v. State 131 So. 3d 35 La. 2014
See State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
State ex rel. Jones v. State 131 So. 3d 39 La. 2014
See State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
State ex rel. Russell v. State 131 So. 3d 39 La. 2014
See State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
State ex rel. Mead v. State 131 So. 3d 39 La. 2014
See State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
State ex rel. Ford v. State 131 So. 3d 40 La. 2014
See State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
State ex rel. Gordon v. State 131 So. 3d 41 La. 2014
See State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
State ex rel. Smith v. State 131 So. 3d 41 La. 2014
See State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
State ex rel. Williams v. State 131 So. 3d 41 La. 2014
See State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
State ex rel. Bradford v. State 131 So. 3d 42 La. 2014
See State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
State ex rel. Robinson v. State 131 So. 3d 42 La. 2014
See State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
State ex rel. Finch v. State 131 So. 3d 42 La. 2014
See State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
State ex rel. Williams v. State 131 So. 3d 838 La. 2014
See State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
State ex rel. Mathis v. State 131 So. 3d 838 La. 2014
See State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
State ex rel. Cummings v. State 131 So. 3d 838 La. 2014
See State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
State ex rel. Brown v. State 131 So. 3d 40 La. 2014
See State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
State ex rel. Flagg v. State 131 So. 3d 40 La. 2014
See State v. Dick 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
J. Reed Constructors, Inc. v. Roofing Supply Group, L.L.C. 135 So. 3d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
at p. 4; State v. Dick, 2006-2223, pp. 8-9 (La.1/26/07), .
Krielow v. Louisiana Department of Agriculture & Forestry 125 So. 3d 384 La. 2013
See, e.g., State v. Dick, 06-2223 (La.1/26/07), .
State v. Jones 125 So. 3d 1169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. Dick, 06-2223 (La.1/26/07), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated "that the law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense is determinative of the penalty which the accused must suffer, and that a defendant must be sentenced according to the sentencing provisions in effect at the tim
State v. Dickerson 159 So. 3d 478 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07), .
State v. Surry 121 So. 3d 804 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07), .
State of Louisiana v. Darryl James Theriot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
1 Cir. 7/20/06); writ granted, 06-2223 (La.9/29/06); and affirmed, 06-2223 (La.1/26/07)
State ex rel. Finney v. State 131 So. 3d 22 La. 2013
See State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
State v. Schwartz 102 So. 3d 991 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
1 Cir. 7/20/06) ; , writ granted, 06-2223 (La.9/29/06); and affirmed, 06-2223 (La.1/26/07); .
State v. Breaux 96 So. 3d 1226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Dick, 06-2223 (La.1/26/07), .
State v. Ventris 79 So. 3d 1108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Acts No. 403, § 4, effective June 15, 2001; State v. Dick, 06-2223, p. 4 (La.1/26/07), .
State v. Enterkin 71 So. 3d 475 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Dick, 2006-2283 (La.1/26/07), ; State v. Morrison, 45,620 (La.App.
State v. Scoggins 70 So. 3d 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07), , citing State v. Sugasti, 2001-3407 (La.6/21/02), .
Hawkins v. Redmon 42 So. 3d 360 La. 2010
10/16/07), , quoting State v. Dick, 06-2223 (La.1/26/07), .
In Re Clegg 41 So. 3d 1141 La. 2010
Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 07-0478 (Lajl0/16/07),21 (quoting State v. Dick, 06-2223 (La.1/26/07), ).
State v. Collins 30 So. 3d 72 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Acts No. 403, § 4, effective June 15, 2001; State v. Dick, 06-2223, p. 4 (La.1/26/07), .
Rogers v. Terrell 24 So. 3d 1035 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
1/26/07), , the supreme court held that the power to reduce punishment from a greater to a lesser sentence belongs to the executive branch alone.
Weaver v. LeBlanc 22 So. 3d 1014 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
However, in State v. Dick, 06-2223, 06-2226 (La.1/26/07), , 133 the supreme court reviewed the statute, affirmed this court’s decision, and found that the power to reduce punishment from a greater to a lesser sentence belongs to the executive branch alone.
State v. Cass 17 So. 3d 486 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. Dick, 2006-2223 (La.1/26/07), , sets forth the law applicable to statutory interpretation and construction, with citations omitted: The function of statutory interpretation and the construction to be given to legislative acts rests with the judicial branch of the government.
State v. Mead 16 So. 3d 470 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. Dick, 06-2223 (La.1/26/07), ; State v. Surry, 41,909 (La.App.
State v. Evans 998 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Dick, 06-2223, pp. 10-11 (La.1/26/07), .