Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Johnson, 55 So. 2d 782.

61 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Lawrence Michael Handley A/K/A Lawrence M. Handley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
3 Cir. 5/4/94), ( So.2d 782 (1951)), writ denied, 94-1455 (La.
State of Louisiana in the Interest of M.S. . La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
When an error in the disposition involves the imposition of restrictions beyond what is authorized in the statutes, appellate courts are instructed to correct 8 (La.
Joseph Branch v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Hall 250 So. 3d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Johnson , , (1951)."
State of Louisiana v. Andrea Hall La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
3/30/95), this court stated: “An illegal sentence is one not ‘authorized or directed by law.’ So.2d 782 (1951).” When a relator’s motion to correct an illegal sentence fails to allege and prove that the sentence is not authorized or directed by law, the asserted claims are often reviewed as if submitted by application for post-conviction relief.
State of Louisiana v. Therand Guy Thacker La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 3/4/15), this court explained in pertinent part: So.2d 782, 783-84 (1951) (citations omitted), the court explained in pertinent part: In any criminal case it is the mandatory duty of the district judge upon conviction of a defendant to impose a sentence authorized or directed by law, and, if he does
State v. Thacker 187 So. 3d 552 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 3/4/15), , this court explained in pertinent part: , -84 (1951) (citations omitted), the court explained in pertinent part: In any criminal cáse it is the mandatory duty of the district judge upon conviction of a defendant to impose a sentence authorized or directed by *560 law, and, if he does not impose a sentence authorized or directed bylaw, the s
State v. Mead 165 So. 3d 1044 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 4/17/96), ( , -84 (1951)).
State of Louisiana v. Zhegao Quan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
14:70.4, provides a sentence of not more than six months, or a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or both; however, the trial court imposed five years at hard labor on each conviction.1 So.2d 782, 783-84 (1951) (citations omitted), the court explained in pertinent part: In any criminal case it is the mandatory duty of the district judge upon conviction of a defendant to impose a sentence authorized or directed by law, and, if he does not impose a sentence authorized
State v. Zhegao Quan 157 So. 3d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
1 , -84 (1951) (citations omitted), the court explained in pertinent part: In any criminal case it is the mandatory duty of the district judge upon conviction of a defendant to impose a sentence authorized or directed by law, and, if he does not impose a sentence authorized or directed by law, the sente
State of Louisiana v. Robert Edwards, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
3/30/95), this court stated, “[a]n illegal sentence is one not ‘authorized or directed by law.’ So.2d 782 (1951).” Some of the costs imposed by the trial court were not duly authorized by law.
State v. Edwards 153 So. 3d 1013 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 5/4/94), , writ denied, 94-1455 (La.3/30/95), , this court stated, “[a]n illegal sentence is one not ‘authorized or directed by law.’ , (1951).” Some of the costs imposed by the trial court were not duly authorized by law.
State v. Maldonado 96 So. 3d 1221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that “an illegal sentence results in a situation where ‘no sentence at all has been imposed, and it [the sentence] must be remanded to the district court so that the judge may impose a legal sentence.’ ” State v. Rome, 96-0991 (La.7/1/97), , , (1951).
State of Louisiana v. Michael Wayne Belton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
3/30/95), this court stated: “An illegal sentence is one not „authorized or directed by law.‟ So.2d 782 (1951).” Initially, we note La.R.S.
State of Louisiana v. Rendrick R. Duke La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
3/30/95), this court stated: “An illegal sentence is one not „authorized or directed by law.‟ So.2d 782 (1951).” (La.App.
State v. Duke 84 So. 3d 722 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
3 Cir. 5/4/94) , , writ denied, 94-1455 (La.3/30/95), , this court stated: “An illegal sentence is one not ‘authorized or directed by law.’ , (1951).” (La.App.
State v. Maricle 998 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State of Louisiana v. Glaston F. Maricle La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
3/30/95), this court stated: “An illegal sentence is one not ‘authorized or directed by law.’ (1951).” In the instant case, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to a sentence beyond that authorized by law thereby rendering the Defendant’s sentence illegal.
State of Louisiana v. Jimmy James Mack La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
3 Cir. 5/4/94), writ denied, 94-1455 (La.3/30/95), this court stated: “An illegal sentence is one not ‘authorized or directed by law.’ So.2d 782 (1951).” In State v. Gedric, 99-1213, p. 3 (La.App.
State v. Mayes 982 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State of Louisiana v. Cleveland Mayes, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
3/30/95), this court stated: “An illegal 5 sentence is one not ‘authorized or directed by law.’ So.2d 782 (1951).” In State v. Gedric, 99-1213, p. 3 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. S.J.I. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
3/30/95), this court stated: “An illegal sentence is one not ‘authorized or directed by law.’ So.2d 782 (1951).” The Defendant contends his sentence is illegal because “the Legislature has not authorized Judges to impose Hard Labor and suspend part of it for conditional release.” In support of this claim, (La.1983
State v. Price 952 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
State of Louisiana v. Steven R. Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
So.2d 782 (1951), the Supreme Court stated: In any criminal case it is the mandatory duty of the district judge upon conviction of a defendant to impose a sentence authorized or directed by law, and, if he does not impose a
State v. Thomas 924 So. 2d 1146 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
(1951), the Supreme Court stated: In any criminal case it is the mandatory duty of the district judge upon conviction of a defendant to impose a sentence authorized or directed by law, and, if he does not impose a sentence authorized or directed by law, the sentence is illegal, and the case is in the sa
State v. Davis 834 So. 2d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
(1951).” (Emphasis added.)
State v. Warren 824 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that “an illegal sentence results in a situation where ‘no sentence at all has been imposed, and it [the sentence] must be remanded to the district court so that the judge may impose a legal sentence.’ ” State v. Rome, 96-0991 (La.7/1/97), , , (1951).
State v. Paoli 818 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Williams 800 So. 2d 790 La. 2001
[11] This Court had earlier stated than an illegal sentence is "no sentence at all," State v. Rome, 96-0991 (La.7/1/97), , quoting State v.Johnson, , (1951).
State v. Mark 732 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
The State in its writ argues that its lack of an objection is irrelevant because the illegal sentence is an absolute nullity, citing State v. Johnson, *112 , (1951), in which the court stated that if a trial court does not impose a legal sentence, “the sentence is illegal, and the case is in the same condition as if no sentence at all has been imposed, and it must be remanded to the district court so that the judge may impose a legal sentence.” Id.
State v. Ballay 727 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
(1951); State v. Green, 93-1432 (La.App.4 Cir.4/17/96), , writ denied, 96-1131 and 96-1248 (La.10/4/96), .
State v. Rome 696 So. 2d 976 La. 1997
State v. Green 673 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
State ex rel. James v. Whitley 646 So. 2d 366 La. 1994
State ex rel. Campbell v. Fourth Circuit, Court of Appeal 646 So. 2d 364 La. 1994
State ex rel. Johnson v. Whitley 646 So. 2d 366 La. 1994
State ex rel. Smith v. Criminal District Court 646 So. 2d 367 La. 1994
State ex rel. Willis v. State 646 So. 2d 365 La. 1994
State ex rel. Johnson v. Day 637 So. 2d 1062 La. 1994
art. 882, which states that illegal sentences “may be corrected at any time.” , (1951).
State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Day 637 So. 2d 1062 La. 1994
State v. Moore 640 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Lewis 628 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
(1951); In any criminal case it is the mandatory duty of the district judge upon conviction of a defendant to impose a sentence authorized or directed by law, and, if he does not impose a sentence authorized or directed by law, the sentence is illegal, and the case is in the same condition as if no sent
State v. Merrell 511 So. 2d 1234 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
art. 882, Comment (b); , (1951); (La.App.
State v. Sepcich 485 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Coleman 451 So. 2d 185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Jenkins 451 So. 2d 1142 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
(1951), the Supreme Court stated: "In any criminal case it is the mandatory duty of the district judge upon conviction of a defendant to impose a sentence authorized or directed by law, and, if he does not impose a sentence authorized or *1145 directed by law, the sentence is illegal, and the case is in
State v. Battaglia 377 So. 2d 264 La. 1979
Lege v. Vermilion Parish School Bd. 360 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
The Supreme Court in the stated: 'The difference between prescription and peremption is that the former simply bars the remedy whereas, in the latter, time is made of the essence of the right granted and a lapse of the statutory period operates as a complete extinguishment of the right.
State v. Siegel 354 So. 2d 525 La. 1978
State Ex Rel. Hebert v. Henderson 290 So. 2d 832 La. 1974
NOTES [1] If a trial judge "does not impose a sentence authorized or directed by law, the sentence is illegal," , 55 So.