Cited by

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

1912 citing documents.

State v. Brady 524 So. 2d 1356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Neal 524 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Oubre 524 So. 2d 221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Nevertheless, , (La.1978), same case, the court expressly stated that “the imposition of a sentence although within the statutory limits may violate a defendant’s constitutional right against excessive punishment that is enforceable ...
State v. Tyler 524 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State v. Hodges 526 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State v. Perkins 527 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State v. Hammond 526 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Higginbotham 522 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
the Supreme Court stated that the statutory criteria legislatively provided by LSA-C.Cr.P.
State v. Klause 525 So. 2d 1076 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State v. Rodgers 525 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Fisher 525 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Coulon 525 So. 2d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
the court expressly stated that the imposition of a sentence, although within the statutory limit, may violate a defendant’s constitutional right against excessive punishment.
State v. Laird 525 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
at page 769, the court stated: “If, as the trial court implied, imprisonment is mandated because the statute indicates imprisonment “should” be imposed if any one of the aggravating circumstances is found to exist, this is an erroneous construction of the statute.
State v. Klause 525 So. 2d 1076 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Jackson 523 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Carter 521 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Pender 521 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Tarver 521 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Collier 522 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Carter 522 So. 2d 1100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Williams 521 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Smith 520 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
appeal after remand, (La.App.
State v. Montgomery 525 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Senegal 524 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Smith 524 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Cunningham 525 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Gross 517 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Green 518 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Williams 520 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Thompson 520 So. 2d 1116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Walker 520 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Martin 520 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
1979); State v. Sepulvado, [ ], supra.
State v. Simon 520 So. 2d 1044 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Walker 516 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Thompson 516 So. 2d 349 La. 1987
Const. art. I, § 20; La.Supreme Court Rule XXVIII; and other authorities.
State v. Michaels 516 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
State v. Ford 517 So. 2d 221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Rodriguez 517 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Trahan 520 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Jackson 520 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Dozier 520 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Sepulvado [ ], supra.
State v. Nelson 518 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Gipson 514 So. 2d 646 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Deters 517 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. LeBlanc 517 So. 2d 951 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Const. art. I § 20; (La.
State v. Flunder 517 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Matthews 517 So. 2d 1064 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Wright 513 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Arcement 514 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Chiles 514 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
in support of his argument that his sentence is excessive.