Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. McQueen, 308 So. 2d 752.

49 citing documents.

State of Louisiana in the Interest of C.R. Vs. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
State v. Ellis 190 So. 3d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
t a multiple bill may be filed “at any time, either after conviction or sentence.” Although the statute does not prescribe a time within which the multiple bill must be filed, this court has made a determination that ‘“the district attorney must file the habitual offender bill within a reasonable time.’” State v. Muhammad, 2003-2991, p. 14 (La.5/25/04), ().
State v. Cureaux 165 So. 3d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
icle 874, which requires that criminal sentences be imposed “without unreasonable delay,” and the defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial, “the multiple offender bill must be filed within a reasonable time after the necessary information is available to the appropriate district attorney.” State v. Muhammad, 2003-2991, p. 14 (La.5/25/04), *231 ().
State v. Richardson 155 So. 3d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
le bill may be filed “at any time, either after conviction or sentence.” According to State v. Muhammad, 03-2991, p. 14 (La.5/25/04), , “[although the statute does not prescribe a time within which the bill must be filed, this court has made a determination that the district attorney must file the habitual offender bill ‘within a | ¡^reasonable time.’ ” ().
State ex rel. T.W. 141 So. 3d 822 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Ernest D'Wayne Derryberry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
However, given the fact that the rule adopted in [State v.] McQueen [] and [State v.] Broussard[, ] is based on the requirement of La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Buckley 88 So. 3d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Rainey 43 So. 3d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Cottonham 27 So. 3d 320 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Although no specific time limit for filing is provided by the statute, the supreme court has held that the statute “does not allow an indefinite time in which the district attorney may file the multiple offender bill once the necessary information is available.” Toney, supra
State v. Rios 7 So. 3d 832 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
the supreme court found that a multiple offender bill must be filed within a reasonable time after the necessary information is available to |fithe appropriate district attorney.
State v. Severin 985 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Watkins 972 So. 2d 381 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
a case in which the court considered the time for filing a habitual offender bill of information.
State v. Girod 892 So. 2d 646 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Muhammad 875 So. 2d 45 La. 2004
State v. Toney, 02-0992 (La.4/9/03), , (La.
State v. Iverson 855 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State v. Toney 842 So. 2d 1083 La. 2003
State v. Perkins 811 So. 2d 997 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
-756 (La.1975), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a three and one-half year delay in filing the bill of information after the defendant's sentencing was unreasonable when the state offered no explanation for the delay.
State v. Howard 805 So. 2d 1247 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
State v. Anderson 788 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State ex rel. K.G. 778 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Although noting that the supreme court had determined that the sanction for an unreasonable delay in sentencing was the divestiture of the trial court’s the court also observed that the comments to La.C.Cr.P.
State Ex Rel. Kg 778 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
the court also observed that the comments to La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Bass 767 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, ), or to the State's failure to file the multiple bill within a reasonable time after conviction ( ).
State v. Hancock 748 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Williams 681 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State in Interest of TT 677 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
State v. Dorsey 672 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
State v. Ryan 619 So. 2d 537 La. 1993
State v. Moore 619 So. 2d 537 La. 1993
18 , (1950); cf., State v. Bell, 324 *
State v. Lewis 596 So. 2d 198 La. 1992
State v. McCoy 586 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Spellman 547 So. 2d 1361 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
City of Winnfield v. Weems 545 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Davis 542 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Quinney 543 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Miskell 538 So. 2d 1055 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Bell 471 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Milson 458 So. 2d 1037 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Broussard 416 So. 2d 109 La. 1982
City of Baton Rouge v. Bourgeois 380 So. 2d 63 La. 1980
State v. Martin 372 So. 2d 563 La. 1979
State v. Muse 367 So. 2d 789 La. 1979
we held that an unexplained delay of three years, eight months, in filing a charge to enhance penalty was unreasonable.
State v. Wilson 360 So. 2d 166 La. 1978
State v. Murray 357 So. 2d 1121 La. 1978
State v. Maduell, La., (1976); State v. McQueen, La., (1975).
State v. Bullock 329 So. 2d 733 La. 1976
we held that, while R.S.
State v. Walker 328 So. 2d 87 La. 1976
State v. Bell 324 So. 2d 451 La. 1975
State v. Martin 316 So. 2d 740 La. 1975
State v. LeBlanc 315 So. 2d 654 La. 1975
State v. Davalie 313 So. 2d 587 La. 1975