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. Solomon, 379 So. 2d 1078.

31 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Raymond Daniel Lowrey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    State v. Didier, 262 La.
  • State v. Lowrey 228 So. 3d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    State v. Didier, 262 La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Cody Keith Fontenot -Aka- Cody Fontenot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    the supreme court addressed whether double jeopardy prevented Solomon from pleading guilty to simple burglary of a vehicle when he had previously been convicted of theft of a watch from the same vehicle.
  • State v. Fontenot 207 So. 3d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    the supreme court addressed whether double jeopardy prevented Solomon from pleading guilty to simple burglary of a vehicle when he had previously been convicted of theft of a watch from the same vehicle.
  • State v. Davis 115 So. 3d 68 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Richard 115 So. 3d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State of Louisiana v. Letrakus Tyler AKA Trey Tyler La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    However, -80 (La.1980), the court implied no such violation, holding in pertinent part: 12 Because the defendant plead guilty to the burglary charge, there is no trial transcript to review in order to determine whether evidence in the theft trial wo
  • State v. Tyler 93 So. 3d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    However, -80 (La.1980), the court implied no such violation, holding in pertinent part: 11sBecause the defendant plead guilty to the burglary charge, there is no trial transcript to review in order to determine whether evidence in the theft trial would be the “same evidence” to prove the burglary charge.
  • State of Louisiana v. Christopher Sherman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Marcus W. Anderson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    However, -80 (La.1980), the court implied no such violation, holding in pertinent part: Because the defendant plead guilty to the burglary charge, there is no trial transcript to review in order to determine whether evidence in the theft trial would be the “same evidence” to prove the burglary
  • State v. Anderson 66 So. 3d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    However, -80 (La.1980), the court implied no such violation, holding in pertinent part: Because the defendant plead guilty to the burglary charge, there is no trial transcript to review in order to determine whether evidence in the theft trial would be the “same evidence” to prove the burglary charge.
  • State v. Williams 978 So. 2d 895 La. 2008
    (on a Crosby appeal from a conditional guilty plea following denial of a motion to quash, the Court did not have a trial transcript to review "in order to determine whether evidence in the theft trial would be the `same evidence' to prove the burglary charge," but did have "the testimony from the motio
  • State v. Williams 952 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
  • State v. Gaines 688 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
  • State v. Woodberry 686 So. 2d 984 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Ellis 657 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
    State v. Vaughn, supra , State v. Didier, 262 La.
  • State v. Bolden 639 So. 2d 721 La. 1994
  • State v. Freeman 577 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • State v. Miller 571 So. 2d 603 La. 1990
  • State v. Williams 524 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Cureaux 467 So. 2d 1377 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
  • State v. Holmes 462 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Dunn 454 So. 2d 1301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not....” See also
  • State v. Cotten 438 So. 2d 1156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Littleton 436 So. 2d 500 La. 1983
    the same argument was raised concerning a burglary of an automobile and the theft of a watch from inside the glove compartment.
  • State v. Fontenot 408 So. 2d 919 La. 1981
    and the "same evidence" test
  • State v. Comeaux 408 So. 2d 1099 La. 1981
  • State v. Beavers 394 So. 2d 1218 La. 1981
    2221, 2225 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977)
  • State v. Knowles 392 So. 2d 651 La. 1980
    State v. Didier, 262 La.
  • State v. Vincent 387 So. 2d 1097 La. 1980
  • State in Interest of Lewis 386 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    our Supreme Court commented on the application in this state of the constitutional principle of double jeopardy: "Both the Louisiana and the United States Constitutions provide that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty for the same offense.