DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Sanders, 337 So. 2d 1131.

62 citing documents.

  • Overruled State of Louisiana v. Trivual A. Charles -Aka- Trivual Batiste -Aka- Trivual Charles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    To the extent that cases state to the contrary, they are overruled.
  • Overruled State v. Charles 270 So. 3d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    To the extent that cases state to the contrary, including State v. Sanders , and State v. Firmin , they are overruled.
  • State v. Gibson 192 So. 3d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    overruled in part by Baker and approved in part by Ruiz .
  • State v. Mandigo 136 So. 3d 292 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    In support-of his position
  • State v. Holloway 120 So. 3d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    To support this contention, the defendant relies on two Louisiana Supreme Court decisions, which have since been overruled.
  • Overruled State of Louisiana v. Christopher Guillory La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    To the extent that cases state to the contrary, they are overruled.
  • Overruled State v. Guillory 120 So. 3d 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    To the extent that cases state to the contrary, they are overruled.
  • State v. Lewis 104 So. 3d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Guidera 111 So. 3d 339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    (per curiam), prevented the double use of a defendant’s recidivist offender status, thereby preventing the state from using a defendant’s recidivist offense as part of a habitual offender allegation.
  • State of Louisiana v. Arthur Bias, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    The supreme court has addressed the issue of double enhancement in a string of cases, (overruled in part by Baker, ).
  • State v. Bias 63 So. 3d 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    The supreme court has addressed the issue of double enhancement in a string of cases, (overruled in part by Baker, ).
  • State v. LANDOR 34 So. 3d 1166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    1978) (per curiam), (La.
  • State v. Foster 23 So. 3d 885 La. 2009
    In vacating that adjudication and sentence, the court of appeal purported to apply our decision in State v. Baker, 06-2175 (La.10/16/07), , in part, and held that a sentence imposed upon a conviction for felon in possession of a firearm in violation of La.R.S.
  • State v. Hayes 16 So. 3d 604 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    the court held that it was not the intent of the legislature to provide for enhancement of the felon in possession of a firearm statute under the habitual offender law.
  • State of Louisiana v. Gregory John Ruiz La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    Rev stat 15:529.1, on the basis of the same prior convictions, violated this court’s (the State may not seek multiple enhancement of a defendant’s sentence on the basis of the same set of prior convictions).
  • State v. Ruiz 3 So. 3d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Rev stat 15:529.1, on the basis of the same prior convictions, violated this court’s (the State may not seek multiple enhancement of a defendant’s sentence on the basis of the same set of prior convictions).
  • State v. Foster 3 So. 3d 595 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    to the extent that they were not consistent with this ruling.
  • State v. Dotie 1 So. 3d 833 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
  • State v. Platt 998 So. 2d 864 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    Legal Principles Although not clearly expressed, in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held that an adjudication for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm could not be further enhanced under the habitual offender law.
  • State v. Brooks 997 So. 2d 688 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    1 Previously, the court had held that the State could not multi-bill a person who had been convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm by using in the multiple offender bill the same convictions alleged as elements of the firearms offense.
  • State v. Brooks 997 So. 2d 688 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    [1] Previously, the court had held that the State could not multi-bill a person who had been convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm by using in the multiple offender bill the same convictions alleged as elements of the firearms offense.
  • State v. Baker 970 So. 2d 948 La. 2008
    The appellate court rejected Baker's sole argument that his adjudication and sentencing as an habitual offender following his conviction for felon in possession of a firearm constituted "double enhancement"
  • State v. Ruiz 955 So. 2d 81 La. 2007
    Rev stat 15:529.1, on the basis of the same prior convictions, (the State may not seek multiple enhancement of a defendant's sentence on the basis of the same set of prior convictions).
  • State v. Baker 935 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Peters 935 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
  • State v. White 907 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Myles 894 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
  • State v. Anders 778 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • State v. Walker 775 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • State v. Johnson 771 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Whereas a convicted felon bears a status by his very existence, implicating the logic of State vs. Sanders, this instant fact situation is different, in that Mr. Johnson chose to commit his battery upon a correctional officer and while being detained in a correctional facility.
  • State v. President 715 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Keys 694 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Harrelson 590 So. 2d 1240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    He further submits that, he could not be adjudicated a habitual offender.
  • State v. McFarland 578 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • State v. Goodin 550 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Bennett 544 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Griffin 525 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Harris 511 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    4th Cir.1983), writ denied was wrongly decided and should be overruled since it conflicts with the Supreme Court’s
  • State v. Brown 504 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Barnes 503 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    In the Jackson case, proscribed the enhancement of the penalty for a violation of R.S.
  • State v. Davis 499 So. 2d 1311 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    Defendant argues, however, that Jackson was wrongly decided, relying on several Louisiana Supreme Court decisions:
  • State v. Whittaker 496 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Collins 495 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. King 490 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Street 480 So. 2d 309 La. 1985
    is not controlling here, it is persuasive.
  • State v. Theard 466 So. 2d 791 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    In Williams the Louisiana Supreme Court, ruled that a defendant convicted of violating LSA-R.S.
  • State v. Victorian 448 So. 2d 1304 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Jackson 438 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    proscribed the enhancement of the penalty for a violation of R.S.
  • State v. Morris 429 So. 2d 111 La. 1983
  • State v. Hayes 412 So. 2d 1323 La. 1982