Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Alexander, 325 So. 2d 777.

33 citing documents.

State v. Boyette 264 So. 3d 625 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
State v. Alexander , (La.
State v. Baptiste 209 So. 3d 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
A multiple offender bill of information “does not charge a crime but is merely the method of informing the sentencing court of the circumstances and requesting an enhancement of penalty.” (La.
State v. Diggins 126 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
As this court explained in State v. Vincent, the Court reasoned that the “(bill of) information [charging the defendant as a multiple offender] does not charge a crime but is merely the method of informing the sentencing court of the circumstances and requesting an enhancement of penalty.” Thus
State v. Tatten 116 So. 3d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
the Court reasoned that the “(bill of) information [charging the defendant as a multiple offender] does not charge a crime but is merely the method of informing the sentencing court of the circumstances and requesting an enhancement of penalty.” Thus
State of Louisiana v. Clarence Walker Nelson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
4/9/10), (second alteration in original), held that “[h]abitual offender proceedings do not charge a separate crime but are a part of the original proceeding leading to conviction, and a defendant generally may appeal only from „[a] judgment which imposes sentence.‟ La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Nelson 98 So. 3d 960 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Since this court’s ruling in the Defendant’s prior appeal, the supreme court in State v. Means, 09-1716, p. 2 (La.4/9/10), (second alteration in original), held that “[hjabitual offender proceedings do not charge a separate crime but are a part of the original proceeding leading to conviction, and a defendant generally may appeal only from ‘[a] judgment which imposes sentence.’ La.C.Cr.P.
State of Louisiana v. Tyrone A. Murray La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Habitual offender proceedings do not charge a separate crime but are a part of the original proceeding leading to conviction, and a defendant generally may appeal only from “[a] judgment which imposes sentence.” La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Murray 92 So. 3d 591 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Habitual offender proceedings do not charge a separate crime but are a part of the original proceeding leading to conviction, and a defendant generally may appeal only from “[a] judgment which imposes sentence.” La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Landfair 70 So. 3d 1061 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
the Court reasoned that the “(bill of) information [charging the defendant as a multiple offender] does not charge a crime but is merely the method of informing the sentencing court of the circumstances and requesting an enhancement of penalty.” Thus
State v. Vincent 56 So. 3d 408 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
the Court reasoned that the “(bill of) information [charging the defendant as a *415 multiple offender] does not charge a crime but is merely the method of informing the sentencing court of the circumstances and requesting an enhancement of penalty.” T
State of Louisiana v. Timothy Dale Perkins La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Habitual offender proceedings do not charge a separate crime but are a part of the original proceeding leading to conviction, (La.
State v. Perkins 54 So. 3d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Habitual offender proceedings do not charge a separate crime but are a part of the original proceeding leading to conviction
State v. Means 32 So. 3d 805 La. 2010
Habitual offender proceedings do not charge a separate crime but are a part of the original proceeding leading to conviction, and a defendant generally may appeal only from “[a] judgment which imposes sentence.” La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Tassin 998 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
the Louisiana Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion and stated that La.Code Crim.P.
State of Louisiana v. Deandre Johnson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
However, in the matter before us, the defendant was adjudicated as a habitual offender, and the conviction which gave rise to this adjudication is of an offense which does not carry a life imprisonment penalty.5 Furthermore, the supreme court concluded that the requirements of La.Const.
State of Louisiana v. Melvin Tassin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
the Louisiana Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion and stated that La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Johnson 996 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
[5] Furthermore, in *1238 (La.
State v. Mickel 961 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Wilson 956 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
State v. Delandro, 2001-2514 (La.App.
State v. Jackson 947 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Smith , XXXX-XXXX at p. 3, 913 So.2d at 838 ( and State v. Delandro, 2001-2514 (La.App.
State v. Collins 910 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
-779 (La.1976), the Louisiana Supreme Court made it clear that Article I, § 15 of the Louisiana Constitution "was not intended to and does not apply to the institution of enhanced-penalty proceedings" under LSA-R.S.
State v. Smith 913 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
State v. Delandro, 2001-2514 (La.App.
State v. Delandro 818 So. 2d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Bush 733 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Keys 694 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Bennett 544 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Glenn 493 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Walker 416 So. 2d 534 La. 1982
State v. Langendorfer 389 So. 2d 1271 La. 1980
State v. Hill 340 So. 2d 309 La. 1976
State v. Willie Alexander, Jr.
State v. Jolla 337 So. 2d 197 La. 1976
State v. Maduell, La., (1976); State v. Williams, La., (1976); State v. Stewart, La., (1976); State v. Alexander, La., (1976).
State v. Montana 332 So. 2d 248 La. 1976
State v. Walker 328 So. 2d 87 La. 1976
See State v. Williams, supra ; State v. Alexander, La., (decided January 19, 1976).