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. Franks, 373 So. 2d 1307.

125 citing documents.

  • State v. Hall 576 So. 2d 41 La. 1991
  • State v. Desdunes 576 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    Both the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances must be considered, and the court must state the factual basis underlying its conclusion.
  • State v. Flowers 559 So. 2d 1372 La. 1990
  • State v. Greer 553 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    Both the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances must be considered, and the court must state the factual basis underlying its conclusion.
  • State v. Kanupp 552 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Not only the aggravating circumstances, but the mitigating circumstances as well must be considered, and the court must state the factual basis underlying its conclusion.
  • State v. Segura 546 So. 2d 1347 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. James 545 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    Not only the aggravating circumstances, but the mitigating circumstances as well must be considered, and the court must state the factual basis underlying its conclusion.
  • State v. Thompson 544 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Sanders 542 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Foster 541 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Not only the aggravating circumstances, but the mitigating circumstances as well must be considered, cert.
  • State v. Coleman 528 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Lofton 528 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Charrier 525 So. 2d 591 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Michaels 516 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    Not only the aggravating circumstances but the mitigating circumstances as well must be considered, and the Court must state the factual basis underlying its conclusion.
  • State v. Bunch 510 So. 2d 1266 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    Not only the aggravating circumstances but the mitigating circumstances as well must be considered, and the court must state the factual basis underlying its conclusion.
  • State v. Freeman 503 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    Not only the aggravating circumstances but the mitigating circumstances as well must be considered, and the court must state the factual basis underlying its conclusion.
  • State v. Gray 502 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    Not only the aggravating circumstances but the mitigating circumstances as well must be considered, and the court must state the factual basis underlying its conclusion.
  • State v. Rousell 501 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    Where the trial court has considered sentencing guidelines and so states its factual basis for the imposition of sentence, the appellate court will focus upon whether there exist an abuse of discretion.
  • State v. Williams 499 So. 2d 142 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Shelton 490 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    1017 , 71 L.Ed.2d 305 (1982); affirmed in part, cert.
  • State v. Racine 480 So. 2d 945 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Caston 477 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    State v. Davis, supra , affirmed in part cert.
  • State v. Murray 476 So. 2d 1170 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    appeal after remand, , cert.
  • State v. Camps 476 So. 2d 864 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Guidry 472 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    See 396 So.2d at 296 ; cert.
  • State v. Perry 472 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    State v. Williams, supra; cert.
  • State v. Dixon 471 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    State v. Davis, supra ; affirmed in part cert.
  • State v. McGhee 469 So. 2d 1051 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Williams 467 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    and the court must state the factual basis underlying its conclusion.
  • State v. Mosley 466 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    the Supreme Court held that broad language such as this in imposing consecutive sentences does not satisfy the requirements of Code of Criminal Procedure article 894.1, and therefore remanded the case for re-sentencing.
  • State v. Hayes 466 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Not only the aggravating circumstances, but the mitigating circumstances as well must be considered, and the court must state the factual basis underlying its conclusion.
  • State v. Santee 464 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    1017 , 71 L.Ed.2d 305 (1982); affirmed in part, cert.
  • State v. Lewis 452 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Melton 456 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    on appeal from remand, cert.
  • State v. Swift 449 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    To be adequate, a court's sentencing statement must indicate that the court considered "not only circumstances militating for incarceration, but also any mitigating factors", statements must contain specific reasons "in relation to the particular offender and the actual offense", (La.
  • State v. Slate 440 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Stroud 438 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    State v. McDonald, supra; certiorari denied, 450 U.S. 983 , 101 S.Ct.
  • State v. Morgan 439 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Sherer 437 So. 2d 276 La. 1983
  • State v. Catchings 440 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • State v. Boyette 434 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    does not satisfy the requirement that the trial court state for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis therefore in imposing sentence.” see also
  • State v. Benton 432 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Smith 426 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Ruple 426 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Ray 423 So. 2d 1116 La. 1982
  • State v. Keeney 422 So. 2d 1144 La. 1982
  • State v. Duncan 420 So. 2d 1105 La. 1982
  • State v. McClain 415 So. 2d 936 La. 1982
    not only the circumstances militating for incarceration, but also any mitigating factors,”
  • State v. Dura 414 So. 2d 1243 La. 1982
    This limited recitation, however, virtually ignored this Court’s repeated warning that “the sentencing court should indicate that it has considered not only circumstances militating for incarceration, but also any mitigating factors.”
  • State v. Walker 414 So. 2d 1245 La. 1982