Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Underwood, 353 So. 2d 1013.

114 citing documents.

State v. Herrington 512 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
it was held that the trial court erred in failing to afford defense counsel access to the presentence report and an opportunity to rebut any adverse information contained therein.
State v. Duvio 511 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
State v. Mills 505 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Sims 505 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Parker 503 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Some of those factors include defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, supra ; the dangerousness of the offense, the harm done to the victim, (La.App.
State v. Dorsey 498 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Williams 497 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Williams 499 So. 2d 142 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
1520 , 67 L.Ed.2d 818 (1981)
State v. Joles 492 So. 2d 490 La. 1986
see also Commentary to Standards for Criminal Justice § 13-2.1 (2nd ed. 1986).
State v. Dawson 490 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Means 486 So. 2d 992 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Sims 483 So. 2d 1006 La. 1986
State v. Norman 482 So. 2d 1069 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
58 (1980)]; [appeal after remand, ].
State v. Ball 482 So. 2d 840 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
v. Underwood, app. after remand, (1978); St.
State v. Cottingin 476 So. 2d 1184 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Camps 476 So. 2d 864 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
in which the court observed that "based on the American theory and practice, concurrent rather than consecutive sentences are the usual rule, at least for a defendant without previous record and in the absence of a showing that the public safety requires
State v. Lahrmann 475 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Pruitt 474 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
State v. Pruitt 474 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Atley 470 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
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. Cook 466 So. 2d 40 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Odell 462 So. 2d 887 La. 1985
State v. Ashley 463 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Some of these factors *803 include defendant's first-offender status, State v. Ortego, supra; dangerousness of the offense, harm done to the victim, (La.App.
State v. Colvin 452 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Berthelot 449 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
In arguing the first issue presented, (La.
State v. Westfall 446 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
While concurrent rather than consecutive sentences are the usual rule for a defendant without previous criminal record and in the absence of a showing that the public safety requires a longer sentence [ (La.
State v. Lewis 445 So. 2d 195 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Williams 445 So. 2d 1264 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Lockwood 439 So. 2d 394 La. 1983
where we concluded that the defendant was entitled to have his sentence set aside because the false or invalid data contained in the PSI, and to which the sentencing judge was exposed, might have contributed to the severity of the sentence.
State v. Johnson 439 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
and argues that because he was unable to review the P.S.I.
State v. Littleton 436 So. 2d 500 La. 1983
135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)
State v. Boyette 434 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Armstead 432 So. 2d 837 La. 1983
State v. Young 432 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Molinario, supra
State v. Roberts 427 So. 2d 1300 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Barrios 425 So. 2d 980 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
* * *" our Supreme Court stated that "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."
State v. Jett 419 So. 2d 844 La. 1982
While the general rule that concurrent rather than consecutive sentences are the usual rule for a defendant without previous criminal record and in the absence of a showing that the public safety requires a this court has never held that if convictions arise out of a single course of illegal conduct, consecutive sentences will necessarily be found to be excessive.
Hargrave v. Gaspard 419 So. 2d 918 La. 1982
[7] Similarly, and its progeny, this court has held that due process requires a defendant in a criminal proceeding to be allowed an opportunity to rebut materially and prejudicially false information contained in a confidential pre-sentence report.
State v. Green 418 So. 2d 609 La. 1982
State v. Farria 412 So. 2d 577 La. 1982
State v. Humphrey 412 So. 2d 507 La. 1982
State v. Talbot 408 So. 2d 861 La. 1981
State v. Molinario 400 So. 2d 596 La. 1981
State v. Phillips 391 So. 2d 1155 La. 1980
this Court cannot condone the type of burglaries that’s been going on in this Parish, and I think Mr. Phillips is an example — .” (Hearing Tr., p. 5)
State v. Beatty 391 So. 2d 828 La. 1980
[10] concurrent as opposed to consecutive sentences are preferred in cases of multiple convictions for non-violent felonies.
State v. Telsee 388 So. 2d 747 La. 1980
State v. Upton 382 So. 2d 1388 La. 1980
In challenging the ruling below, the defense relies on this Court's decisions in State v. Bosworth
State v. Ortego 382 So. 2d 921 La. 1980
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."
State v. Knapp 378 So. 2d 911 La. 1979
See United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 , 92 S.Ct.