DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State Ex Rel. Jackson v. Henderson, 283 So. 2d 210.

32 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana Versus Robert Celestine, Jr. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
  • State of Louisiana v. Alexis Sarrabea La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    the statute under which the prosecution is brought is unconstitutional, State v. Bergeron, 152 La.
  • State v. Sarrabea 157 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    the statute under which the prosecution is brought is unconstitutional, State v. Bergeron, 152 La.
  • State v. Landfair 70 So. 3d 1061 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State v. Jackson 979 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
  • State v. Shaw 969 So. 2d 1233 La. 2007
    which addressed a different aspect of the habitual offender statute: whether multiple convictions entered on the same day must be treated as a single predicate for purposes of determining one's status as a multiple offender.
  • State of Louisiana v. John Joseph La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    the statute under which the prosecution is brought is unconstitutional, State v. Bergeron, 152 La.
  • State v. Joseph 916 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    the statute under which the prosecution is brought is unconstitutional, State v. Bergeron, 152 La.
  • State v. Lowery 890 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • State v. Johnson 884 So. 2d 568 La. 2004
  • State v. Smith 883 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    the statute under which the prosecution is brought is unconstitutional, State v. Bergeron, 152 La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Robet Thomas Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    the statute under which the prosecution is brought is unconstitutional, State v. Bergeron, 152 La.
  • State v. Everett 816 So. 2d 1272 La. 2002
  • State v. Flagg 815 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
  • Criticized State v. Odom 772 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Thomas 680 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    State ex relator Jackson v. Henderson, [ ]; State v. Duncan, 219 La.
  • State Ex Rel. Mims v. Butler 601 So. 2d 649 La. 1992
    (quoting Bennett, Criminal Law and Procedure, 17 La.L.Rev.
  • State Ex Rel. Porter v. Butler 573 So. 2d 1106 La. 1991
    [1] *1108 In Sherer , that convictions on more than one count entered on the same date should be treated as one conviction for purposes of the habitual offender statute, and held that only one of the defendant's convictions on two counts of negligent homicide arising out of a single highway accident could be used in sentencing t
  • State v. Mims 535 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    to support his contention that for the purpose of the habitual offender statute multiple convictions entered on the same day must be treated as one conviction.
  • State v. Lennon 496 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Williams 482 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    held that convictions on more than one count entered on the same day should be treated as one conviction for multiple bill purposes.
  • State v. Simmons 422 So. 2d 138 La. 1982
    [3] stated: The plain meaning of the statute as it now stands requires that in order for one to be considered a second offender, the second offense must have been committed after the first conviction.
  • State v. Sherer 411 So. 2d 1050 La. 1982
    this court held that convictions on more than one count entered on the same date should be treated as one conviction for applying the habitual offender statute.
  • State v. Chapman 367 So. 2d 808 La. 1979
    this Court held that convictions on more than one count entered on the same day should be treated as one conviction for applying the multiple offender statute.
  • State ex rel. Hunter v. Blackburn 366 So. 2d 564 La. 1979
  • State v. Taylor 347 So. 2d 172 La. 1977
    15:529.1 B; State ex rel Jackson v. Henderson, La., (1973).
  • State v. Schamburge 344 So. 2d 997 La. 1977
    Jackson v. Henderson, La., (1973), we held that four previous convictions entered on the same date should be treated as one for applying the multiple offender statute.
  • State v. Crosby 338 So. 2d 584 La. 1976
  • State ex rel. Matthews v. Henderson 323 So. 2d 134 La. 1975
  • State v. McQueen 308 So. 2d 752 La. 1975
  • City of Monroe v. Fincher 305 So. 2d 108 La. 1974
    Jackson v. Henderson, La., (1973).
  • State v. Jackson 298 So. 2d 777 La. 1974