Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Pierson, 296 So. 2d 324.
-
State of Louisiana v. Tyrek Randall
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
Also, the Louisiana Supreme Court has stated that a trial judge “may properly consider evidence of other offenses in determination of sentence where there is a showing that the defendant did in fact perpetuate the other offense.”
-
State v. Hampton
195 So. 3d 548
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
“A trial judge may properly consider evidence of other offenses in determination of sentence where there is a showing that the defendant did in fact perpetrate the other offense.”
- State v. Harris 911 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
- State v. Jackson 540 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
- State v. Roye 501 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
- State v. Wilder 499 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
- State v. Rodriguez 499 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
-
State v. Devillier
466 So. 2d 807
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
589 , 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972); United States v. Espinoza, 481 F.2d 553 (C.A.5th 1973); (La.
-
State v. Green
440 So. 2d 847
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
in which the consideration of other offenses in imposing sentence was properly founded upon a sufficient showing that the defendant was the perpetrator.
- State v. McCarty 438 So. 2d 1296 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
- State v. Tully 430 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
- State v. Roberts 427 So. 2d 1300 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
- State v. Gambino 362 So. 2d 1107 La. 1978
-
State v. Frank
344 So. 2d 1039
La. 1977
State v. Butler, La., (1974); State v. Pierson, La., (1974); State v. Polk, 258 La.
-
State v. Hatter
338 So. 2d 100
La. 1976
At no point during the sentencing procedure did defense counsel object to the judge's reference to the presentence investigative report nor is a copy of the report before us. The determination of a sentence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, (La.
- State v. Butler 302 So. 2d 585 La. 1974