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. Underwood, 353 So. 2d 1013.

114 citing documents.

  • State Of Louisiana v. Kerry Alexander La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
  • State Of Louisiana v. Cody C. Dantin La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    2d 49 ( per curiam); ( La.
  • State v. Washington 274 So. 3d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    art. 883 ; State v. Underwood , , 1019 (La.1977), a trial judge retains discretion to impose consecutive penalties on the basis of other factors, including the offender's past criminality, violence in the charged crimes, or the risk he or she poses to the general safety of the community.
  • State of Louisiana v. Gerrell Washington La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    art. 883; a trial judge retains discretion to impose consecutive penalties on the basis of other factors, including the offender’s past criminality, violence in the charged crimes, or the risk he or she poses to the general safety of the community.
  • State of Louisiana v. Gerrell Washington La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    art. 883; a trial judge retains discretion to impose consecutive penalties on the basis of other factors, including the offender’s past criminality, violence in the charged crimes, or the risk he or she poses to the general safety of the community.
  • State v. Washington 274 So. 3d 193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    art. 883 ; State v. Underwood , , 1019 (La.1977), a trial judge retains discretion to impose consecutive penalties on the basis of other factors, including the offender's past criminality, violence in the charged crimes, or the risk he or she poses to the general safety of the community.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jeffery Wayne Ross La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
  • State v. Ayala 243 So. 3d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    The general preference for concurrent rather than consecutive sentences was recognized by this Court in State v. Underwood , , 1019 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jose Isreal Ayala, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
  • State of Louisiana v. Patrick Seth Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    art. 883; State v. 11 Underwood, a trial judge retains discretion to impose consecutive penalties on the basis of other factors, including the offender’s past criminality, violence in the charged crimes, or the risk he or she poses to the general safety of the community.
  • State v. Jones 229 So. 3d 1002 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    art. 883; a trial judge retains discretion to impose consecutive penalties on the basis of other factors, including the offender’s past criminality, violence in the charged crimes, or the risk he or she poses to the general safety of the community.
  • State of Louisiana v. Toby James Fruge 179 So. 3d 579 La. 2015
  • State v. Brown 173 So. 3d 1262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Wilson 167 So. 3d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Stockman 147 So. 3d 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    art. 883; (LaJ1977),10 a trial judge retains discretion to impose consecutive penalties on the basis of other factors, including the offender’s past criminality, violence in the charged crimes, or the risk he or she poses to the general safety of the community.” State v. Thomas, 98-1144 (La.10/9/98), ; State
  • State of Louisiana v. Jimmy L. Bartie La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    art. 883; a trial judge retains discretion to impose consecutive penalties on the basis of other factors, including the offender‟s past criminality, violence in the charged crimes, or the risk he or she poses to the general safety of the community.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jarvis Angelle La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    In support of his argument
  • State v. Angelle 124 So. 3d 1247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    In support of his argument
  • State v. Marcelin 116 So. 3d 928 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    art. 883; a trial judge retains discretion to impose consecutive penalties on the basis of other factors, *939 including the offender’s past criminality, violence in the charged crimes, or the risk he or she poses to the general safety of the community.” The Supreme Court in Thomas determined that the defendant
  • State of Louisiana v. Jimmy L. Bartie La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    art. 883; a trial judge retains discretion to impose consecutive penalties on the basis of other factors, including the offender’s past criminality, violence in the charged crimes, or the risk he or she poses to the general safety of the community.
  • State v. Bartie 104 So. 3d 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    art. 883; a trial judge retains discretion to impose consecutive penalties on the basis of other factors, including the offender’s past criminality, violence in the charged crimes, or the risk he or she poses to the general safety of the community.
  • State of Louisiana v. Catrina L. Wallace La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    t or 11 transaction, or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, the terms of the imprisonment shall be served concurrently unless the court expressly directs that some or all be served consecutively.” While Defendant does not explain her theory of how her drug activity constituted a single course of conduct, and argues that in Underwood, “the Louisiana Supreme Court vacated as excessive a consecutive twenty-five year sentence for three counts of distribution of marijuana over two month pe
  • State v. Wallace 92 So. 3d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    onvicted of two or more offenses based on the same act or | ^transaction, or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, the terms of the imprisonment shall be served concurrently unless the court expressly directs that some or all be served consecutively.” While Defendant does not explain her theory of how her drug activity constituted a single course of conduct, and argues that in Underwood , “the Louisiana Supreme Court vacated as excessive a consecutive twenty-five year sentence for three
  • State v. Cornejo-Garcia 90 So. 3d 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Colvin 65 So. 3d 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State of Louisiana v. Clyde A. Bowens La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State v. JPF 32 So. 3d 1016 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State of Louisiana v. J.P. F. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State v. BS 10 So. 3d 895 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • State v. Boudreaux 782 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    art. 883; a trial judge retains discretion to impose consecutive penalties on the basis of other factors, including the offender's past criminality, violence in the charged crimes, or the risk he or she poses to the general safety of the community.
  • State v. Emerson 722 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Thomas 719 So. 2d 49 La. 1998
    art. 883; a trial judge retains discretion to impose consecutive penalties on the basis of other factors, including the offender's past criminality, violence in the charged crimes, or the risk he or she poses to the general safety of the community.
  • State v. Watkins 700 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Williams 677 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Walker 677 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • State v. James 670 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Lee 668 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    Factors to be considered are prior criminal history of the defendant, whether the defendant poses an unusual risk to public safety, the harm done to the victims, (La.App.
  • State v. Myles 638 So. 2d 218 La. 1994
  • State v. Countee 617 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    In State v. Underwood, La., (1977), this Court vacated the defendant’s sentence due to the trial court’s error in not allowing defense counsel access to the pre-sentence report and an opportunity to rebut a false statement in it.
  • State v. McNair 597 So. 2d 1096 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • State v. Harris 593 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    in which we observed that “[b]ased on the American theory and practice, concurrent rather than consecutive sentences are the usual rule, at least for a defendant without previous criminal record and in the absence of a showing that the public safety requires a longer sentence.” This Court, however, has
  • State v. Coleman 574 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    State v. Bosworth, supra; State v. Davis, supra, and cases therein cited; appeal after remand, .
  • State v. Armstrong 557 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • State v. Jackson 552 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    Some of these factors include defendants' first-offender status, State v. Ortego, supra; the dangerousness of the offense and the public safety, the harm done to the victim, (La.App.
  • State v. Crocker 551 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Washington 550 So. 2d 287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Some of those factors include defendant’s criminal history, State v. Ortego, supra; the dangerousness of the offense, the viciousness of the crimes, the harm done to the victim, (La.App.
  • State v. Thompson 543 So. 2d 1077 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Higginbotham 541 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    Defendant is entitled to access to the non-confidential portions of his pre-sentence investigation report (PSI) in order to ascertain the presence of any adverse information contained therein
  • State v. Davis 528 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Taylor 514 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987