Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Romar, 985 So. 2d 722.

43 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Josue Hernandez-Romero La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
7/1/08), and State v. Williams, 11-1231 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Felton Thompson La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Deismond Derral Simmons La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
7/1/08), the supreme court found the court of appeal erred in precluding the State from arguing a cause for interruption that was not raised in the trial court.
State Of Louisiana v. Jonathan Ray Harbin, Jr. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
7/ 1/ 08), ( per curiam).
State of Louisiana v. Justin Marshall La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
7/1/08), the State charged the defendant by bill of information on December 16, 1997.
State v. Gumms 247 So. 3d 193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Reed 218 So. 3d 729 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
7/1/08), (per curiam), resolved a split among the circuits and firmly held that “La.
State v. Otkins-Victor 193 So. 3d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
prevent the oppression caused by suspending, criminal prosecutions, over citizens for indefinite periods of time.’” State v. Romar, 07-2140 (La.7/1/08), .
State v. Victor 195 So. 3d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
prevent the oppression caused by suspending criminal prosecutions over citizens for indefinite periods of time.’” State v. Romar, 07-2140 (La.7/1/08), .
State of Louisiana Versus Errol Victor, Sr. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
State v. Brown 193 So. 3d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Romar, 07-2140, pp. 3-6 (La.7/1/08), -26 (interpreting the provision of La.
State v. Stewart 176 So. 3d 465 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
The Louisiana Supreme Court explained that this burden ordinarily “ ‘requires the State to exercise due diligence in discovering the whereabouts of the defendant as well as taking appropriate steps to secure his presence for trial once it has found him.’ ” State v. Romar, 07-2140, p. 3 (La.7/1/08), , quoting State v. Bobo, 03-2362, p. 5 (La.4/30/04), -56 .
State v. Domino 216 So. 3d 898 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Romar, 2007-2140, p. 3 (La.7/1/08), (citing State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), ) (citations | ¿omitted).
State v. Brown 161 So. 3d 99 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
In support of its argument, the State cites State v. Romar, 07-2140 (La.7/1/08), , in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a defendant’s failure to appear for trial after receiving actual notice was a direct contempt of court and, thus, a valid ground for interruption of the time limitation in La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Williams 156 So. 3d 1285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Finally, the State argues that under State v. Romar, 07-2140 (La.7/1/08), , it had no obligation to spend resources chasing a wayward defendant.
State v. Pierre 146 So. 3d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In State v. Romar, 2007-2140 (La.7/1/08), , the Louisiana Supreme Court, resolving a split [7among the circuit courts, considered whether La.
State v. Jones 144 So. 3d 1092 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
However, the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Roman 2007-2140, p. 6 (La.7/1/08), , firmly held that “La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Thomas 138 So. 3d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
These statutory limitations for the commencement of trial "provide predictability by specifying a limit beyond which there is an irrebuttable presumption that a defendant’s right to a fair trial would be prejudiced.” State v. Romar, 07-2140, p. 3 (La.7/1/08), (per curiam) (citing United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 322 , 92 S.Ct.
State v. Anderson 132 So. 3d 1265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In State v. Romar, 07-2140, p. 6 (La.7/1/08), , 725 the Louisiana Supreme Court held that La.Code Crim.
State v. Brady 131 So. 3d 166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In support, the State cites State v. Romar, 07-2140 (La.7/1/08), , for the proposition that when a defendant’s absence results from his imprisonment in another jurisdiction, the State must take affirmative steps once his whereabouts have come to its attention.
State of Louisiana v. Thomas Kirk Gaton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
7/1/08) it was noted that the Legislature amended La.
State v. Dipietro 118 So. 3d 1182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. Romar, 07-2140 (La.7/1/08), , the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the State bears no affirmative duty to search for a defendant who fails to appear at a proceeding pursuant to actual notice, even where the State could have seemingly found the defendant.
State v. Joseph 112 So. 3d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Romar, 2007-2140, p. 3 (La.7/1/08), (citing State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), ) (citations omitted).
State v. McQuirter 108 So. 3d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The Louisiana Supreme Court held in State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), , that when the state is unable, through no fault of its own, to try a defendant within the period specified by statute, “An interruption of prescription occurs.” The State argues that, pursuant to State v. Romar, 2007-2140 (La.7/1/08), , and La.
State v. McKenzie 105 So. 3d 959 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Romar, 07-2140, p. 3 (La.7/1/08), (citation omitted).
State v. Davis 105 So. 3d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Romar, 07-2140 (La.7/1/08), .
State v. Drummer 107 So. 3d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
That burden ordinarily “requires the State to exercise due diligence in discovering the whereabouts of the defendant as well as taking appropriate steps to secure his presence for trial once it has found him.” State v. Romar, 07-2140, p. 3 (La.7/1/08), ; citing State v. Bobo, 03-2362, p. 5 (La.4/30/04), -56 .
State v. Andres 100 So. 3d 953 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
prevent the oppression caused by suspending criminal prosecutions over citizens for indefinite periods of time.’” State v. Romar, 2007-2140, p. 8 (La.7/1/08), , citing State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
State v. Lommasson 81 So. 3d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
prevent the oppression caused by suspending criminal prosecutions over citizens for indefinite | fiperiods of time.’ ” State v. Romar, 07-2140, p. 3 (La.7/1/08), (per curiam), quoting State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
State v. Green 72 So. 3d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The State supports its argument and cites the case of State v. Romar, 2007-2140, p. 3 (La.7/1/08), , in which the Supreme Court opined: As a general matter, the state has two years from the institution of prosecution to begin trial of a non-capital felony.
State v. Dillon 72 So. 3d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See State v. Romar, 07-2140, p. 3 (La.7/1/08), ; State v. Baptiste, 08-2468 (La.6/23/10), .
State v. Baker 71 So. 3d 545 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In State v. Romar, 07-2140 (La.7/1/08), , a defendant who was wanted on an outstanding warrant for a third offense of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated reappeared in court eight years later, following his arrest on another charge of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and execution of the open attachment.
State of Louisiana v. C.W. W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Peters 52 So. 3d 233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
“[A] defendant who has chosen to ignore actual notice should not receive any benefit from his action; by the same token, the Appellant should not bear the burden of finding and reserving (or arresting) such defendants.” State v. Romar, 2007-2140, *236 p. 5 (La.7/1/08), (quoting State v. Buckley, 2002-1288, p. 8 (La.App.
State v. CURINGTON 51 So. 3d 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
prevent the oppression caused by suspending criminal prosecutions over citizens for indefinite periods of time.’ ” State v. Romar, 07-2140, p. 3 (La.7/1/08), .
State v. Sorden 45 So. 3d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
art. 579 A(3) does not impose on the prosecution the “affirmative duty to search for a defendant who has failed to appear for trial after receiving actual no *190 tice.” State v. Romar, 07-2140, p. 6 (La.7/1/08), ; see also State v. Buckley, 02-1288, p. 8 (La.App.
State v. Baptiste 38 So. 3d 247 La. 2010
See State v. Romar, 07-2140 at p. 6 (La.7/1/08), -27 (statute interrupting two-year time limit for prosecution of non-capital felony cases if defendant failed to appear at any proceeding pursuant to actual notice did not impose on the state the affirmative duty to search for defendant who had failed to appear for trial after receiving actual notice, even though
State of Louisiana v. Milton Anthony Wilks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Wilks 32 So. 3d 972 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Romar, 07-2140 (La.7/1/08), .
State v. George 30 So. 3d 858 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
7/1/08), (per curiam), quoting State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
State v. Davis 21 So. 3d 1038 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
| fiMost recently, in State of Louisiana v. Romar, 2007-2140 (La.7/1/08), , the defendant, who was wanted on outstanding warrant for third offense of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, reappeared in court eight years later, following his arrest on another charge of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and execution of the open attachment for him issued.
State v. Evans 998 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Romar, 07-2140, pp. 7-8 (La.7/1/08), (per curiam).
State v. Tillman 997 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Recently, in State v. Romar, 2007-2140 (La.7/1/08), , the Supreme Court, following the Third Circuit ruling in State v. Buckley, XXXX-XXXX (La.App.