Cited by

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

220 citing documents.

State v. Tompkins 429 So. 2d 1385 La. 1983
State v. Williams 430 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Webster 427 So. 2d 1324 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Pike 426 So. 2d 1329 La. 1983
The enactment concludes that the trial court ` shall state for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis therefor in imposing sentence.'" -121 (La.1979).
State v. Chaney 423 So. 2d 1092 La. 1982
State v. Ray 423 So. 2d 1116 La. 1982
State v. Sepulvado, supra .
State v. Oubichon 422 So. 2d 1140 La. 1982
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. Knox 425 So. 2d 707 La. 1982
State v. Pope 420 So. 2d 961 La. 1982
State v. Stucke 419 So. 2d 939 La. 1982
State v. Lewis 416 So. 2d 921 La. 1982
State v. Walker 416 So. 2d 534 La. 1982
State v. McClain 415 So. 2d 936 La. 1982
While we affirm defendant’s conviction, we agree that the trial court’s reasons do not support the apparently severe sentence imposed
State v. Bosworth 415 So. 2d 912 La. 1982
State v. Spencer, supra, 374 So.2d at 1202 .
State v. Wimberly 414 So. 2d 666 La. 1982
State v. Robicheaux 412 So. 2d 1313 La. 1982
State v. Lejeune 412 So. 2d 1386 La. 1982
State v. Winn 412 So. 2d 1337 La. 1982
where it was noted that concurrent rather than consecutive sentences are the usual rule under American theory and practice, at least for a defendant without a criminal record and in the absence of a showing that the public safety requires a longer sentence.
State v. Sugar 408 So. 2d 1329 La. 1982
State v. Messer 408 So. 2d 1354 La. 1982
State v. Grey 408 So. 2d 1239 La. 1982
State v. Huntsberry 409 So. 2d 555 La. 1982
State v. Talbot 408 So. 2d 861 La. 1981
While a defendant complaining about the excessiveness of his sentence is no longer required to make a formal objection at time of sentencing to preserve post-verdict error for appellate review, defendant is required to alert this Court to his objection to the sentence imposed by providing this Court with an assignment of error.
State v. Cupit 408 So. 2d 1108 La. 1981
State v. Washington 406 So. 2d 191 La. 1981
State v. Harris 406 So. 2d 128 La. 1981
State v. Washington 406 So. 2d 191 La. 1981
State v. Dunns 404 So. 2d 1235 La. 1981
State v. Guillory 404 So. 2d 453 La. 1981
State v. Telsee 404 So. 2d 921 La. 1981
State v. Prados 404 So. 2d 925 La. 1981
we stated if the factual basis and individual considerations upon which the sentence is based appear in the record, review will focus upon whether the trial court's large discretion has been abused.
State v. Price 403 So. 2d 660 La. 1981
State v. Hogan 403 So. 2d 1210 La. 1981
State v. Bowick 403 So. 2d 673 La. 1981
State v. Spruell 403 So. 2d 63 La. 1981
State v. Bates 397 So. 2d 1331 La. 1981
State v. Russell 397 So. 2d 1319 La. 1981
that it "* * * may vacate a sentence and remand for re-sentencing, when the reasons for an apparently severe sentence in relation to the particular offender and the actual offense committed do not appear in the record."
State v. Williams 396 So. 2d 296 La. 1981
State v. Brown 395 So. 2d 1301 La. 1981
State v. Saunders 393 So. 2d 1278 La. 1981
State v. Molinet 393 So. 2d 721 La. 1981
State v. Day 391 So. 2d 1147 La. 1980
State v. Green 390 So. 2d 1253 La. 1980
State v. Brumfield 390 So. 2d 1335 La. 1980
State v. McMahon 391 So. 2d 1120 La. 1980
State v. MacDonald 390 So. 2d 1276 La. 1980
State v. Smith 389 So. 2d 1262 La. 1980
State v. Bourgeois 388 So. 2d 359 La. 1980
State v. Daranda 388 So. 2d 759 La. 1980
State v. Jones 386 So. 2d 85 La. 1980