Cited by

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

1912 citing documents.

State v. Torres 470 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Keller 470 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Rivers 470 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
appeal after remand 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 that is enforceable ...
State v. Kelly 469 So. 2d 316 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Coleman 469 So. 2d 1069 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. McGhee 469 So. 2d 1051 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Wilkins 468 So. 2d 1351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Haslom 468 So. 2d 1354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Rogers 468 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Day 468 So. 2d 1336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Terrase 468 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
we held that "the imposition of a sentence, although within the statutory limit, may violate a defendant's constitutional rights against excessive punishment that is enforceable by this court on appellate review of his conviction."
State v. Childs 466 So. 2d 1363 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
see generally State v. *1366 Sepulvado, and its progeny.
State v. Grow 467 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Brian 467 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Williams 467 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
State v. Thomas 468 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Shows 467 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Foster 467 So. 2d 1254 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Mitchell 468 So. 2d 3 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Carprue 468 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Nelson 467 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Holmes 467 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Elliott 467 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
To the contrary, the Supreme Court stated: In providing a wide range of criminal sanctions for violations of a statute, the legislature obviously intends that the judge shall exercise his sentencing discretion to impose sentences gradated according to individualized circumstances of the offense and the offender.
State v. Devillier 466 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Mosley 466 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
State v. Hayes 466 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Simpson 464 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Sepulvado, [ ].
State v. Maillian 464 So. 2d 1071 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Const. art. 1, section 20 (1974); (La.
State v. Cook 466 So. 2d 40 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Winzer 465 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Cook 465 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
To the contrary, the Supreme Court noted: In providing a wide range of criminal sanctions for violations of a statute, the legislature obviously intends that the judge shall exercise his sentencing discretion to impose sentences gradated according the individualized circumstances of the offense and of the offender.
State v. Dufore 464 So. 2d 436 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Williams 464 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
A sentence may still be considered excessive even if it is within the statutory limits, but we feel the sentence is not excessive in this case.
State v. Brown 464 So. 2d 1030 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Bowman 464 So. 2d 1038 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Johnson 464 So. 2d 1049 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Brumfield 464 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Although a sentence may still be considered excessive though within the statutory limit, we do not find the sentence in this case to be an abuse of trial court’s sentencing discretion.
State v. Williams 464 So. 2d 1058 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
1st Cir.1984) ( (La.App.
State v. Munzy 464 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. See 462 So. 2d 1369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Sepulvado, [ ], supra.
State v. Joseph 463 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
[2] As to determining what is excessive punishment under the United States Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, decided that the imposition of a sentence, even though within the statutory limits, may be unconstitutionally excessive in violation of Article 1, Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974.
State v. Hudson 463 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
1979); State v. Sepulvado, [ ] supra.
State v. Broussard 463 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Dickerson 463 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
As to determining what is excessive punishment under the United States’ Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, decided that the imposition of a sentence, even though within the statutory limits, may be unconstitutionally excessive in violation of Article 1, Section 20, of the Louisiana Constitution of *108 1974.
State v. Roberts 463 So. 2d 1007 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Ashley 463 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Richardson 463 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Degrate 463 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Smith 463 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Louisiana Constitution Article I, Section 20
State v. Dufrene 461 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984