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. Cook, 372 So. 2d 1202.

47 citing documents.

  • State v. Price 952 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Therein, both the defendant and the State argued in favor of the validity of the plea, and found the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept the plea.
  • State v. Lemon 923 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    This Court concluded that defendant's guilty plea to one of the charges for simple burglary was invalid, because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to accept it, which it discussed as follows: the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that a defendant is not prohibited *801 from entering a guilty plea to a non-responsive crime when such a plea is acceptable to the district attorney, but stated that the district attorney must a
  • State v. Jackson 916 So. 2d 1015 La. 2005
    Facts and Procedural History This case requires the interpretation of Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 487(B) (La.
  • State v. Corzo 896 So. 2d 1101 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that a defendant is not prohibited from entering a guilty plea to a non-responsive crime when such a plea is acceptable to the district attorney, but stated that the district attorney must amend the indictment to charge the non-responsive crime.
  • State of Louisiana v. Kevin Theriot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    In Rito, the court distinguished State v. Cook, [] which found reversible error in the state’s failure to amend the bill of information.
  • State v. Theriot 893 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    In Rito, the court distinguished State v. Cook, [ ] which found reversible error in the state's failure to amend the bill of information.
  • State v. Blake 882 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    State v.Gooden, 523 So.2d at 285 ; (La.
  • State v. Rachal 880 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    State v. Kendrick, 34,097 (La.App.
  • State v. Roark 870 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    State v. Kendrick, 34,097 (La.App.2d Cir.12/20/00), ; (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Larry Collins La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    In Rito, the court distinguished State v. Cook, [] which found reversible error in the state’s failure to amend the bill of information.
  • State v. Collins 865 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    In Rito, the court distinguished State v. Cook, [ ] which found reversible error in the state's failure to amend the bill of information.
  • State v. Charles 827 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Narcisse 791 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Richard 779 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Kendrick 779 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Johnson 771 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Presley 758 So. 2d 308 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Sloan 747 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Lastrapes 743 So. 2d 224 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Rito 700 So. 2d 1169 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Rivers 681 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Campbell 670 So. 2d 1212 La. 1996
  • State v. Alfred 657 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Brown 651 So. 2d 929 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    |3814, 815, 558, 487, (La.App.
  • State v. Guffey 649 So. 2d 1169 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Barclay 591 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • State v. Kirkendoll 559 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    State v. Green, supra; (La.App.
  • State v. Sepulvado 549 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Marceaux 542 So. 2d 1121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Garantine 527 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Porterfield 524 So. 2d 1363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Gooden 523 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Dantoni 520 So. 2d 1270 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • State v. James 517 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    State v. Breaux, supra .
  • State v. Chaisson 507 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Hebert 506 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Breaux 504 So. 2d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    which clearly holds the amendment of the indictment is jurisdictional, and absent a valid amendment of *1012 the indictment, the state courts are without jurisdiction to proceed further.
  • State v. Hardan 501 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
  • State v. Mayeux 498 So. 2d 701 La. 1986
  • State v. Johnson 499 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Vidrine 476 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Taylor 476 So. 2d 929 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Price 461 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    *506 In a similar case, our Supreme Court stated as follows: "Since the crime of simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling requires proof of an essential element, i.e., inhabited dwelling, not found in the crime charged (simple burglary), simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling is not a lesser included offense of simple burglary.
  • State v. Butler 459 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Stevens 452 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Wise 425 So. 2d 727 La. 1983
  • State v. Turnbull 377 So. 2d 72 La. 1979
    More recently, , Number 63,724, we held an unresponsive verdict to be error patent on the face of the record and therefore reviewable on appeal despite absence of an objection during trial.