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. Bosworth, 360 So. 2d 173.

44 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Jeffery Wayne Ross La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    ng is not required, the due process guarantee “requires that a defendant be given an opportunity to rebut false or invalid data of a substantial nature, to which the sentencing judge is exposed, where there is a reasonable probability that it may have contributed to the harshness of the sentence.” Telsee, 388 So.2d at 750 (citing Richardson, Bosworth, Underwood, )).
  • 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. Hamdalla 126 So. 3d 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    4 The criminal defendant has a right to examine this report as “[fjundamental fairness to the defendant requires that the substance of all derogatory information which adversely affects his interest and which has not otherwise been disclosed in open court should be called to the attention of his defendant, his attorney, or others who are acting on his behalf.” (internal quotations and citations omitted).
  • State v. Halley 70 So. 3d 1102 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
  • State of Louisiana v. Denna L. Decuir La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • 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 of Louisiana v. B. S. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • State v. Mitchell 956 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
  • State v. Gibson 628 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • State v. McNair 597 So. 2d 1096 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • State v. Coleman 574 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Bland 558 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
  • State v. Armstrong 557 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • State v. Higginbotham 541 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    He has a right to examine those portions of the PSI prior to having the sentence imposed
  • State v. Davis 528 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    2d 1013 (La.1977); State v. Cox, 369 So.
  • State v. Herrington 512 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Ourso 502 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Cottingin 476 So. 2d 1184 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Lahrmann 475 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Jones 473 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 3d 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. Collinsworth 452 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Bosworth 451 So. 2d 1070 La. 1984
  • State v. Savoie 448 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Parish 429 So. 2d 442 La. 1983
  • State v. Hudson 429 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Robinson 423 So. 2d 1053 La. 1982
  • State v. Fergus 418 So. 2d 594 La. 1982
    Prior to sentencing, appellants filed a motion to traverse the pre-sentence investigation report, and an evidentiary hearing was subsequently held, as required by State v. *598 Bosworth
  • State v. Bosworth 415 So. 2d 912 La. 1982
  • State v. Lockwood 399 So. 2d 190 La. 1981
  • State v. Culberth 390 So. 2d 847 La. 1980
  • 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. Richardson 377 So. 2d 1029 La. 1979
  • State v. Delatte 372 So. 2d 1200 La. 1979
  • State v. Bosworth 373 So. 2d 152 La. 1979
  • State v. Cox 369 So. 2d 118 La. 1979
    art. 894.1, as well as the later jurisprudence, have provided the mechanisms by which the appellate record may reflect the circumstances outside of the trial on the merits, in the light of which the contention of excessiveness may be reviewed on appeal.
  • State v. Songy 367 So. 2d 1178 La. 1979
  • State v. Trahan 367 So. 2d 752 La. 1979
    we reiterated: "Where, in imposing a heavy sentence, the trial court relies upon pre-sentence information which is materially false or which furnishes invalid information, the defendant must be given an opportunity to deny or explain such substantially significant misinformation.
  • State v. Sepulvado 367 So. 2d 762 La. 1979
    We commend him for so doing, since this helpful practice avoids remands to determine the basis of the sentence, see, e. g., is fundamentally fair in affording the accused an opportunity to rebut or explain unfavorable facts, and may well be the most appropriate and expeditious mechanism to explain the context in which the wide sentencing discretion of the trial court is to be exercised.
  • State v. Theriot 361 So. 2d 1206 La. 1978
    State v. Bosworth, No. 61,492