Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Barnes, 365 So. 2d 1282.

35 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Antoine Edwards La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
As the Louisiana Supreme Court explained, the reasoning behind this general rule is that bringing the claim in a post-conviction proceeding before the district court “enables the district judge … to order a full evidentiary hearing on the matter.” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Charles P. Mayeux, Jr. AKA Charles P. Mayeux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State v. Mayeux 265 So. 3d 1096 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Timothy H. Queen -Aka- Timothy Hugh Queen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State v. Queen 237 So. 3d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Willars 661 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Clark 643 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Smith 632 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Outley 629 So. 2d 1243 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Peart 621 So. 2d 780 La. 1993
State v. Holiday 598 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
State v. Robinson 563 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Wille 559 So. 2d 1321 La. 1990
State v. Hall 542 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Newsome 534 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. O'NEAL 501 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Anderson 482 So. 2d 1080 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Tomlin 478 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
1790 , 60 L.Ed.2d 241 (1979)
State v. Carter 463 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Colvin 452 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
explains that the basis of this rule is to allow a district judge in a proper case to order a full evidentiary hearing.
State v. Sewell 448 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Sly 443 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Givens 445 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
State v. Myers 438 So. 2d 1332 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
the Supreme Court held that a defendant must show both that the testimony of out-of-state witnesses would be material and that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying defendant’s motion requesting them.
State v. Seiss 428 So. 2d 444 La. 1983
*449 1980); State v. Anthony, supra
State v. McCabe 420 So. 2d 955 La. 1982
Explained State v. Ratcliff 416 So. 2d 528 La. 1982
City of Baton Rouge v. Malik 404 So. 2d 883 La. 1981
2 In State v. *886 Barnes, we discussed the imposition of an additional prison sentence which might cause the total of the sentences to exceed the maximum imprisonment allowed by the statute.
State v. Toomer 395 So. 2d 1320 La. 1981
State v. Arbo 392 So. 2d 459 La. 1980
State v. Myles 389 So. 2d 12 La. 1980
State v. Brown 384 So. 2d 983 La. 1980
State v. Hawkins 376 So. 2d 943 La. 1979
State v. Bonanno 373 So. 2d 1284 La. 1979
State v. Hogan 372 So. 2d 1211 La. 1979