DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

1912 citing documents.

  • State v. Brogan 453 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Norman 448 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Savage 454 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    an appellate court may review a sentence for excessiveness even though it is within the statutory limit.
  • State v. Asberry 451 So. 2d 1353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    The trial judge has wide discretion, though not unbridled, in the imposition of a sentence within statutory limits, and given compliance with the sentencing criteria of LSA-C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Welcome 458 So. 2d 1235 La. 1984
    1983); (See statistical proportionality review at page 772 and statistics in court's unpublished but public appendix).
  • State v. Willis 452 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    It is well settled that “the imposition of a sentence, although within the statutory limit, may violate a defendant’s constitutional right against excessive punishment that is enforceable by this Court on appellate review of his conviction.”
  • State v. Wilson 452 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Colvin 452 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Jackson 452 So. 2d 1250 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Hunter 454 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Johnson 453 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Holmes 451 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Williams 452 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Andrews 451 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Elzy 451 So. 2d 1167 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Richard 450 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Ceasar 449 So. 2d 1385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    1 As to determining what is excessive punishment under the 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. Hicks 450 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Allen 451 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Foley 456 So. 2d 979 La. 1984
    In accordance therewith, (La.
  • State v. Farris 449 So. 2d 1169 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Arterberry 449 So. 2d 1179 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Pettaway 450 So. 2d 1345 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Nealy 450 So. 2d 634 La. 1984
  • State v. Rainwater 448 So. 2d 1387 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    LSA-Const., Art. 1, § 20; State v. Sepulvado, *1389
  • State v. Sergon 449 So. 2d 193 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    Further, as to determining what is excessive punishment under the Eighth *196 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, § 20 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974.
  • State v. Coats 449 So. 2d 688 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Sly 449 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Swift 449 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Phillips 448 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Indeed, the Supreme Court remarked: In providing a wide range of criminal sanctions (punishment) for violations of a statute, the legislature obviously intends that the [trial] judge shall exercise his sentencing discretion to impose sentences graded according to the individualized circumstances of the offense
  • State v. Wardlow 448 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    *259 The trial judge has wide discretion, though not unbridled, in the imposition of a sentence within statutory limits, and given compliance with the sentencing criteria of LSA-C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Perkins 450 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Davis 449 So. 2d 452 La. 1984
  • State v. Baldwin 448 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Lewis 448 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Smith 446 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Palmer 447 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    [5] the Louisiana Supreme Court 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. Freeman 447 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Williams 446 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    Louisiana Constitution, Art. 1, § 20
  • State v. Hayes 446 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    the Louisiana Supreme Court held that "the imposition of a sentence, although within the statutory limit, may violate a defendant's constitutional rights against excessive punishment."
  • State v. Tasker 448 So. 2d 1311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Glasper 446 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    states that adequate appellate review must consider whether the trial judge gave due consideration to the statutory guidelines and has specifically stated his reasons for imposition of sentence as related to the particular defendant and the crime committed.
  • State v. Ellis 447 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    The trial judge has wide discretion, though not unbridled, in the imposition of a sentence within statutory limits, and given compliance with the sentencing criteria of LSA-C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Turner 447 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Although a the imposition of a sentence within statutory limits may violate a defendant’s constitutional right against excessive punishment and is therefore subject to appellate review, the trial judge is given great discretion in imposing sentences within statutory limits.
  • State v. Acosta 447 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    The penalty actually imposed by the trial court was twenty-five years, or one-half of the maximum assessable penalty- The trial judge has wide discretion, though not unbridled, in the imposition of a *64 sentence within statutory limits, and given compliance with the sentencing criteria of LSA-C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Moore 446 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Const. Art. I, Section 20; (La.
  • State v. Thomas 447 So. 2d 1053 La. 1984
  • State v. Williams 448 So. 2d 659 La. 1984
  • State v. Cody 446 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Westfall 446 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984