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. Williams v. Henderson, 289 So. 2d 74.

57 citing documents.

  • State v. Ross 207 So. 3d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State v. Cureaux 165 So. 3d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Ellison 168 So. 3d 862 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    found that there is no bright line deadline by which a multiple offender proceeding must be completed.
  • State v. Richardson 155 So. 3d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Williams v. Henderson [ ], established a bright line rule that superimposed a requirement for completion of the proceedings not mentioned in [La.C.Cr.P.
  • State of Louisiana v. Alexis Sarrabea La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    the state lacked constitutional or legal power to try the accused for the offense charged, Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct.
  • State v. Sarrabea 157 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    the state lacked constitutional or legal power to try the accused for the offense charged, Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 , 94 S.Ct.
  • State of Louisiana v. Ernest D'Wayne Derryberry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Buckley 88 So. 3d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    to the extent that it established a bright line rule that multiple offender proceedings must be completed before the defendant satisfies his sentence on the underlying felony.
  • State v. Rainey 43 So. 3d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    to the extent that it established a bright line rule that multiple offender proceedings must be completed before the defendant satisfies his sentence on the underlying felony.
  • State v. Severin 985 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    to the extent that it established a bright line rule that multiple offender proceedings must be completed before the defendant satisfies his sentence on the underlying felony.
  • State v. Dauzart 960 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
    found that there is no bright line deadline by which a multiple offender proceeding must be completed.
  • State v. Torres 919 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    found that there is no bright line deadline by which a multiple offender proceeding must be completed.
  • State of Louisiana v. John Joseph La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    the state lacked constitutional or legal power to try the accused for the offense charged, Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct.
  • State v. Joseph 916 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    the state lacked constitutional or legal power to try the accused for the offense charged, Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 , 94 S.Ct.
  • State v. Guillard 902 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
  • State v. Smith 883 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    the state lacked constitutional or legal power to try the accused for the offense charged, Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 , 94 S.Ct.
  • State of Louisiana v. Robet Thomas Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    the state lacked constitutional or legal power to try the accused for the offense charged, Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct.
  • State v. Muhammad 880 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
  • Muhammad v. Stalder 876 So. 2d 52 La. 2004
    this Court set forth *53 a bright line rule that “a proceeding to have a defendant sentenced as a multiple offender must be completed before the defendant serves the sentence which is to be enhanced.” Additionally, in State ex rel.
  • State v. Muhammad 875 So. 2d 45 La. 2004
  • State v. Muhammad 857 So. 2d 1223 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
  • State v. Fisher 852 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
  • State v. Burks 843 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    the defendant was sentenced on May 26, 1971 to serve two and one-half years at hard labor.
  • State v. Wilson 833 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    specifically address instances where multiple offender bills were not filed until after an accused served the underlying sentence, they nonetheless stand for the proposition that proceedings against a convicted defendant to enhance his sentence under R.S.
  • State v. Perkins 811 So. 2d 997 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
  • State v. Grimes 786 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    [7] and argued that the trial court erred by sentencing him to an enhanced sentence as a multiple offender after he had been granted good time release and placed on parole eleven days before the resentencing.
  • State v. Ball 748 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Metoyer 748 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    in deciding whether to again move forward on the habitual offender bill or to simply impose sentence on the defendant for the aggravated escape conviction.
  • State v. Serio 670 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • State v. Dominick 658 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    (the defendant was multiple billed nineteen months after the imposition of the underlying charge and resentenced three months after being discharged from the original sentence).
  • State v. Carter 630 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • State v. Lewis 596 So. 2d 198 La. 1992
  • State v. Williams 596 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    the Court held that a multiple offender hearing must be completed before the defendant serves the sentence to be enhanced.
  • State v. Jenkins 595 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
  • State v. Spellman 547 So. 2d 1361 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • State v. Briggs 526 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Alexander 503 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    specifically address instances where multiple offender bills were not filed until after an accused served the underlying sentence, they nonetheless stand for the proposition that proceedings against a convicted defendant to enhance his sentence under R.S.
  • State Ex Rel. Glynn v. Blackburn 485 So. 2d 926 La. 1986
  • State v. Bell 471 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Adams 446 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Broussard 416 So. 2d 109 La. 1982
  • State v. Spain 384 So. 2d 380 La. 1980
  • State v. Muse 367 So. 2d 789 La. 1979
    where we held that the Habitual Offender Law did not permit an indefinite lapse of time for institution of a proceeding for enhancement of penalty.
  • State v. Lee 364 So. 2d 1024 La. 1978
  • State v. Hill 340 So. 2d 309 La. 1976
  • State v. Crosby 338 So. 2d 584 La. 1976
    the state lacked constitutional or legal power to try the accused for the offense charged, Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 , 94 S.Ct.
  • State v. Sanders 337 So. 2d 1131 La. 1976
  • State v. Badon 338 So. 2d 665 La. 1976
  • State v. Montana 332 So. 2d 248 La. 1976
  • State v. Ricks 329 So. 2d 684 La. 1976