Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Sepulvado, 367 So. 2d 762.

1912 citing documents.

State v. Kingston 668 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
The Court rejected this argument, but it recognized sentence review as an established function of the judicial branch, (La.
State v. Davis 666 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Lombard 662 So. 2d 1039 La. 1995
State v. Lewis 665 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Fontenot 664 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
State v. Young 663 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
I and to urge the Louisiana Supreme Court to clarify the contours of particularized excessiveness review.
State v. Johnson 671 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Robertson 671 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Lay, 93-1063 (La.App.
State v. Taylor 663 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
State v. Hines 663 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
State v. Spencer 663 So. 2d 271 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
State v. Allen 661 So. 2d 1078 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
State v. Marshall 660 So. 2d 819 La. 1995
State v. Jones 657 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Freelon 655 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Pilcher 655 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Manuel 657 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Holleman 657 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Townley 657 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
State v. Ford 653 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Gillord 653 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Brown 648 So. 2d 872 La. 1995
State v. Hodges 651 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
It is a basis for extending the court's control over the entire sentencing process.'" Dorthey, 623 So.2d at 1280
State v. Gordon 651 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Jordan 650 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
State v. Merrill 650 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
State v. Soraparu 649 So. 2d 1100 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
State v. Wright 650 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
State v. Theriot 648 So. 2d 1042 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Broussard 649 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Slang 646 So. 2d 1037 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
State v. Fisher 649 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Cushman 649 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Jones 645 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
State v. Matthews 643 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Alston 643 So. 2d 1328 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Wise 644 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Cf. State v. Telsee, supra
State v. Hullaby 641 So. 2d 1094 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Landry 643 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Smith 639 So. 2d 237 La. 1994
encing court committed reversible error by its failure to comply with any such limitation or regulation in the present case; or (2) if the uniform sentencing policy scheme itself does not directly impose any limits or regulations upon the exercise of the sentencing discretion, (a) whether, under Article I, § 20 of the 1974 the uniform sentencing policy scheme should be used by analogy as appropriate criteria by which to measure whether a sentence within statutory limits is nevertheless constitut
State v. Martin 638 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
State v. Washington 638 So. 2d 1115 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
the Court concluded that the excessiveness of a sentence is a question of law reviewable under appellate jurisdiction.
State v. Washington 638 So. 2d 1115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
the Court concluded that the exeessiveness of a sentence is a question of law reviewable under appellate jurisdiction.
State v. Williams 638 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Trahan 637 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Williams 638 So. 2d 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Lay 637 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Jamison 640 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Frank 635 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Lapoint 635 So. 2d 554 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994