Cited by

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

114 citing documents.

State v. Richardson 377 So. 2d 1029 La. 1979
State v. Owens 377 So. 2d 316 La. 1979
State v. Watson 372 So. 2d 1205 La. 1979
State v. Jacobs 371 So. 2d 727 La. 1979
a case involving the imposition of sentence by the trial judge in reliance on a presentence report which contained false information.
State v. Cox 369 So. 2d 118 La. 1979
State v. Songy 367 So. 2d 1178 La. 1979
State v. Trahan 367 So. 2d 752 La. 1979
State v. Underwood 365 So. 2d 1339 La. 1978
Therefore, under the sentencing principles noted in our original opinion, concurrent instead of consecutive sentences should have been imposed, since the conduct arose out of the same contained (non-extended) course of conduct.
State v. Boone 364 So. 2d 978 La. 1978
where the case was remanded to allow defense counsel to rebut adverse information in a presentence report.
State v. Berain 360 So. 2d 822 La. 1978
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. Bosworth 360 So. 2d 173 La. 1978
State v. Segers 357 So. 2d 1 La. 1978
State v. Goods 355 So. 2d 545 La. 1978
State v. Proctor 354 So. 2d 488 La. 1977
[8] We deem it worth noting that consecutiveness may be a wherein we stated: "Based on 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.