Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. George, 48 So. 2d 265.

35 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. BJ McElveen La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
841 ( 1937) So.2d 265 ( 1950), cert.
State Of Louisiana v. Randall K. Sturdivant La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
841 ( 1937) So.2d 265 ( 1950), cert.
State of Louisiana v. Marlin Devary Demouchet La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
As we have explained, the habitual offender statute was enacted “as a deterrent and a warning to first offenders and as a protection to society by removing the habitual offender from its midst.”
State of Louisiana v. Vernon Holden A/K/A Vernon Demtrius Holden, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Michael Jerome Cochran A/K/A Michael Jerome Cochran, Jr. A/K/A Michael Cochran La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Trivual A. Charles -Aka- Trivual Batiste -Aka- Trivual Charles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Elvin Bryant Jinks, Jr. -Aka- Elvin Jinks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State v. Jinks 267 So. 3d 688 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Charles 270 So. 3d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
In State v. George , , (1950), cert.
State v. Dorsey 260 So. 3d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
11/27/07), , 1243, quoting State v. George , , , 267 (1950), 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."
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. 8 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Robbie Ray Frith AKA - Robbie Frith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Brandon Dale Allen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
t 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 and as a protection to society by removing the habitual offender from its midst.”
State v. Allen 79 So. 3d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
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 and as a protection to society by removing the habitual offender from its midst.”
State of Louisiana v. Timothy Dale Perkins La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Perkins 54 So. 3d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Robinson 54 So. 3d 1208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
(1950), the court declared: “This provision [Art. 521 of the 1928 Code] is for the purpose of affording an opportunity to an accused who has been convicted to file, prior to sentence, further pleadings, such as a motion for a new trial, a motion in arrest of judgment, etc., and, if he is denied
State v. Shaw 969 So. 2d 1233 La. 2007
Distinguished State v. Muhammad 875 So. 2d 45 La. 2004
Williams v. Henderson , , (1950) [11] to the facts of that case declining to extend George beyond its facts.
State v. Youngblood 647 So. 2d 1388 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Dorthey 623 So. 2d 1276 La. 1993
517, 522 , 121 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992); , (1950).
State v. Ryan 619 So. 2d 537 La. 1993
State v. Moore 619 So. 2d 537 La. 1993
(1950); cf., State v. Bell, 324 *
State v. Augustine 555 So. 2d 1331 La. 1990
State v. Brown 504 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Wimberly 414 So. 2d 666 La. 1982
State v. Rowell 306 So. 2d 668 La. 1975
State v. Boatner, La., (1974); , (1950); State v. Hardy, 174 La.
City of Monroe v. Fincher 305 So. 2d 108 La. 1974
(1950); State v. Hardy, 174 La.
State Ex Rel. Williams v. Henderson 289 So. 2d 74 La. 1974
(1950), this court held that the statute permitted an information to be filed and an accused sentenced as a multiple offender even after the original sentence imposed had been served.
State v. Douglas 196 So. 2d 799 La. 1967
this court stated that the delay between conviction and sentence is for the “purpose of affording an opportunity to an accused who has been convicted to file, prior to sentence, further pleadings, such as a motion for a new trial,” etc., and that if he is denied the right to this delay, the sentence s
State v. Scott 184 So. 2d 542 La. 1966
Nevertheless, , , “might be taken for the proposition that, in addition to violation of the twenty-four hour’s delay rule, the defendant must show some prejudice in order for the sentence to be set aside”, conformably with the provisions of LRS 15:557.
State v. Hingle 139 So. 2d 205 La. 1962
State v. Claque 68 So. 2d 746 La. 1953
State v. Woods 55 So. 2d 902 La. 1951
State v. Roy 52 So. 2d 299 La. 1951