DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

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. Davis 438 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Morgan 439 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Cotten 438 So. 2d 1156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Donaldson 439 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • State v. Bell 438 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Spurgeon 437 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    State v. Sepulvado, supra [ ].
  • Goins v. Goins 437 So. 2d 947 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Catchings 440 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • State v. Lewis 436 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    held that Article I, § 20 created the power of appellate review for excessiveness of sentences imposed within the statutory guidelines.
  • State v. Carter 436 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Shea 436 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Brewer 436 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In contending that this sentence was constitutionally infirm, which interpreted Article I § 20 of the 1974 Louisiana Constitution as allowing for appellate review for excessiveness of sentences imposed within the statutory limits.
  • State v. Triplett 434 So. 2d 1270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Brooks 434 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    20 of La.1974 Constitution
  • State v. Boyette 434 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Montero 433 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • State v. Knighton 436 So. 2d 1141 La. 1983
  • State v. Finley 432 So. 2d 243 La. 1983
  • State v. Thomas 432 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Edwards 432 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Jackson 432 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Benton 432 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Harper 430 So. 2d 627 La. 1983
  • State v. Vallare 430 So. 2d 1336 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Const. Art. 1, § 20; [2]
  • State v. Duhon 431 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    It is settled that the imposition of a sentence, although within the statutory limit, may violate a defendant's constitutional right against being subjected to excessive punishment, when a sentence is so excessive or so disproportionate to the severity of the crime as to "shock the sense of justice".
  • State v. Dirden 430 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    Notwithstanding the article and the previous rulings, however, (1979) held that although the sentence imposed is within the statutory limits of the penalty provisions of the violated statutes, it is nevertheless reviewable by an appellate court to determine whether it is excessive punishment under the provisions of Article 1, Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution which provide
  • State v. Lewis 430 So. 2d 1286 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Williams 431 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Parker 431 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    While a trial judge does not have unbridled discretion to impose a sentence within statutory limits, he does have wide discretion in the imposition of sentences and, given compliance with the sentencing criteria of Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure 894.1, the sentence will not be set aside in the absence of a manifest abuse of *116 discretion.
  • State v. Robinson 431 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Parish 429 So. 2d 442 La. 1983
  • State v. Tompkins 429 So. 2d 1385 La. 1983
  • State v. Vaughn 431 So. 2d 358 La. 1983
  • State v. Cruz 430 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Tully 430 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Cooks 430 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Williams 430 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    and its progeny, have created the standard for review of excessive sentences.
  • State v. Guidry 428 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Morgan 428 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Guajardo 428 So. 2d 468 La. 1983
  • State v. Thomas 428 So. 2d 950 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Though a sentence may be excessive even when it is within statutory limits and thereby violate a defendant's state constitutional right against excessive punishment, such is not the case here.
  • State v. Nash 427 So. 2d 1241 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Lane 427 So. 2d 1276 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    tence within the statutory maximum may violate a defendant’s constitutional right against excessive punishment, “the trial judge is given a wide discretion in the imposition of sentences within statutory limits, and the sentence imposed by him should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of an abuse of his discretion.”
  • State v. Webster 427 So. 2d 1324 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Napoli 428 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Fleming 428 So. 2d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    While the trial judge does not have unbridled discretion to impose a sentence within statutory limits, he does have wide discretion in the imposition of sentences and, given compliance with the sentencing criteria of La.C.Cr.Pro.
  • State v. Mathews 428 So. 2d 988 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a sentence within the statutory limits may still violate a defendant's constitutional right against excessive *990 punishment.
  • State v. Roberts 427 So. 2d 1300 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Jones 427 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    the Supreme Court stated that LSA-C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Goodman 427 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983