Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Cox, 369 So. 2d 118.

220 citing documents.

  • State v. Sepulvado 473 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    State v, Cox, State v. Jones, supra.
  • State v. Williams 471 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. McGhee 469 So. 2d 1051 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Rogers 468 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Devillier 466 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    589 , 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972); United States v. Espinoza, 481 F.2d 553 (C.A.5th 1973); (La.
  • State v. Brumfield 464 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Williams 464 So. 2d 1058 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Odell 462 So. 2d 887 La. 1985
  • State v. Broussard 463 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Smith 463 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Stevens 461 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Johnson 459 So. 2d 1316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    ( the Louisiana Supreme Court held that entering of a valid guilty plea does not waive post-plea errors.
  • State v. Smith 457 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Broussard 457 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Gaspard 457 So. 2d 891 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    However, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that where the trial judge imposes a sentence without adequately complying with article 894.1, the reviewing court may vacate a sentence and remand for resen-tencing when the reasons for an apparently severe sentence, in relation to the particular offender and the actual off
  • State v. Vizena 454 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    However, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that where the trial judge imposes a sentence without adequate compliance with the mandatory requirements of article 894.1, that he state *1293 the considerations and the factual basis for his sentence, the reviewing court may vacate a sentence and remand for re-sentencing w
  • State v. Williams 454 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    While we have held that there is no need for a contemporaneous objection for the issue of excessive sentence to be raised upon appeal, we have been careful to limit this rule to prevent the defendant from being relieved of all obligations for objection in connection with sentence review.
  • State v. Guerra 450 So. 2d 404 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Jones 450 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Smith 450 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    our Supreme Court stated, “With the exception of death penalty cases (which this court must independently review in each instance for exces-siveness, La.C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Berthelot 449 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    In addressing the second issue presented, as authority for the premise that a single violent act does not, in itself, justify characterizing the defendant as a danger to society, especially when no evidence that such behavior would reoccur has been presented.
  • State v. Duperon 448 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Smith 446 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Ellis 447 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    the Supreme Court enunciated its policy in reviewing sentences on the ground of excessiveness: ...
  • State v. Coghlan 446 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Shannon 445 So. 2d 734 La. 1984
  • State v. Fruge 445 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Lewis 445 So. 2d 195 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Woods 444 So. 2d 1332 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Danos 444 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Johnson 443 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    Although the sentences are "apparently severe," because they are the maximum allowable, we do not find that the sentence in this case is excessive.
  • State v. Wade 442 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    State v. Lewis, supra ; (La.
  • State v. Johnson 442 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    the Supreme Court enunciated its policy in reviewing sentences on the ground of exeessiveness: ...
  • State v. Brown 440 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Jones 441 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Sonnier 441 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    held "[w]ith the exception of death penalty cases (which this court must independently review in each *361 instance for excessiveness, La.C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Remedies 438 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Johnson 439 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    the Supreme Court enunciated its policy in reviewing sentences on the ground of excessiveness: .
  • State v. Cotten 438 So. 2d 1156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Sherer 437 So. 2d 276 La. 1983
  • State v. Jacobs 435 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    1977), the Louisiana Supreme Court, discussing specific intent relative to a burglary prosecution, determined that intent, being subjective in character, need not be proven as a fact in a burglary prosecution and may be inferred from circumstances of the transaction.
  • State v. Lewis 436 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State Ex Rel. Graffagnino v. King 436 So. 2d 559 La. 1983
  • State v. Paddie 434 So. 2d 392 La. 1983
  • State v. Boyette 434 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    the Supreme Court stated: ...
  • State v. Lewis 431 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that no technical objection is required to be made at the time of sentencing to preserve the issue of excessiveness of sentence for appellate review, when that issue is raised by assignment of error.
  • State v. Oliney 430 So. 2d 1294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    1977), the Louisiana Supreme Court, discussing specific intent relative to a burglary prosecution, determined that intent, being subjective in character, need not be proven as a fact in a burglary prosecution and may be inferred from circumstances of the transaction.
  • State v. Lewis 430 So. 2d 1286 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    [1] and our obligation to follow these cases, we are of the opinion that these cases are in error and that Article 1, Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 should not be applicable to a particular sentence within statutory limits.
  • State v. Terracina 430 So. 2d 64 La. 1983
  • State v. Parish 429 So. 2d 442 La. 1983