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. Adams, 355 So. 2d 917.

48 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Anthony Scott Tubbs La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
  • State of Louisiana v. Jeffrey Clark 220 So. 3d 583 La. 2016
  • State v. Wells 203 So. 3d 233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    The court’s for the proposition that “[o]nly basic rights such as the right to vote, work, or hold public office are restored,” referred to rights restored by operation of La.
  • Derrick Shepherd v. Thomas Schedler, in His Official Capacity as the Secretary of State for the State of … La. 2016
  • State of Louisiana v. Kenneth Wayne Montgomery La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    n. 2 (La.1978), the supreme court stated: The trial judge’s per curiam opinion indicates that he took judicial notice of the fact that he was the judge who had sentenced the defendant in 1975 on a guilty plea to theft.
  • State v. Eberhardt 145 So. 3d 377 La. 2014
    Article I, Section 20 provides, in pertinent part: "Full rights of citizenship shall be restored upon termination of state and federal supervision following conviction for any offense.” Nevertheless, that LSA-Const.
  • STATE OF LOUISIANA v. JAMAL C. TAYLOR AND KELIN A. STEVENS (Parish of Jefferson) STATE OF LOUISIANA v. … La. 2014
    session of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, 5 Article I, Section 20 provides, in pertinent part: “Full rights of citizenship shall be restored upon termination of state and federal supervision following conviction for any offense.” Nevertheless, (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Ernest D'Wayne Derryberry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    In its written ruling, finding Defendant a third felony offender, the trial court noted that the above “[o]rder issued by the Texas court is not a full, complete pardon as it was not issued by the Governor of Texas.” as its authority.
  • Touchet v. Broussard 31 So. 3d 986 La. 2010
    the Court discussed the automatic first offender pardon in the context of habitual offender adjudications and held while it was clear that a full complete pardon by the governor precludes the use of a pardoned offense to enhance punishment, State v. Childers, 197 La.
  • State v. Simms 25 So. 3d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State Ex Rel. Moreau v. Castillo 971 So. 2d 1081 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
  • Malone v. Shyne 937 So. 2d 343 La. 2006
    in which this court listed the right to hold public office as one of the "basic rights of citizenship."
  • Malone v. Shyne 936 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    and in State v. Lee, 171 La.
  • State v. Lemoine 919 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    In support of its position
  • State v. Jacobs 904 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
  • State v. Moore 847 So. 2d 53 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • Malone v. Tubbs 825 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    The third circuit, noted that an automatic pardon pursuant to La.
  • Gordon v. Louisiana State Bd. of Nursing 804 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • State v. Derouin 778 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    In reaching this conclusion, the second circuit analyzed the effect of the automatic pardon provision on the restoration of a convicted felon's rights *1189 and, stated the following: Interpreting three separate Louisiana constitutional provisions, the jurisprudence has drawn distinctions between three situations involving the restoration of certain rights and privileges to convicted felons.
  • State v. Armstrong 756 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    -22 (La.1978); State v. Lee, 98-0087 (La.App.
  • State v. Rollins 749 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • Cook v. Skipper 749 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    The differences between the restoration of the basic rights of citizenship and the effects of a
  • Catanese v. Louisiana Gaming Control Bd. 712 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    The district court based its ruling, in large part, stating that a pardon granted pursuant to Article IV, Section 5(E)(1) restores the privileges of citizenship, as well as rights.
  • Eicher v. LA. STATE POLICE, RIVERBOAT GAMING ENFOR. DIV. 710 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    [11] However, for the proposition that a first offender's pardon does not automatically restore privileges, as opposed to and distinguished from rights.
  • State v. Riser 704 So. 2d 946 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Finally, that there is a third situation, addressed in the second sentence of Art. 4, § 5(E)(1), that provides an automatic pardon to the first time offender upon completion of his sentence.
  • Davis v. Louisiana State Bd. of Nursing 691 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Dear v. State 682 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    the supreme court concluded that the mere completion of a sentence is not sufficient to erase the fact of conviction.
  • Pattan v. Fields 669 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • State v. Rolen 662 So. 2d 446 La. 1995
    Const. art. 4, § 5(E)(1), which absolutely precludes the use of a prior conviction as the basis for enhanced punishment following a subsequent offense, State v. Childers, 197 La.
  • Guillory v. Louisiana State Racing Commission 569 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    The difference between a "pardon” and a "restoration of full rights of citizenship”
  • State v. Haynes 514 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Tatum 466 So. 2d 29 La. 1985
    2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971)
  • State v. Davis 452 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971)
  • State v. Walker 432 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Wiggins 432 So. 2d 234 La. 1983
  • State v. Williams 420 So. 2d 1116 La. 1982
  • State v. Zito 406 So. 2d 167 La. 1981
    2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); (La.
  • State v. Goods 403 So. 2d 1205 La. 1981
  • State v. Garrison 400 So. 2d 874 La. 1981
  • State v. Gould 395 So. 2d 647 La. 1981
  • State v. Frisch 393 So. 2d 1220 La. 1981
  • State v. Sharp 390 So. 2d 1288 La. 1980
  • State v. Tomasetti 381 So. 2d 420 La. 1980
  • State v. Blanchard 374 So. 2d 1248 La. 1979
    2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971)
  • State v. Augillard 371 So. 2d 798 La. 1979
    The defendant relies upon jurisprudence to the effect (a) that mere proof of a prior conviction of a person of the same name as the defendant is not adequate to prove that the present accused was the person convicted in the earlier proceedings, and (b) that the state has the burden of proving the prior convictions of the present defendant, as well as that the ten year period has not elapsed
  • State v. Lewis 366 So. 2d 1355 La. 1978
  • State v. Williams 366 So. 2d 1369 La. 1978
  • State v. Daigre 364 So. 2d 902 La. 1978
    2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971)