Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Vincent, 387 So. 2d 1097.

51 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Deangelo Whitaker La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana v. Uganon Sha Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana v. Chadwick McGhee La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Chadwick McGhee La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State v. McGhee 265 So. 3d 819 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
1980) ; State v. Vincent , (La.
State v. McGhee 252 So. 3d 895 La. 2018
1980) ; State v. Vincent , (La.
State v. Warrick 186 So. 3d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Jamarlon W. Pierre La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Pierre 165 So. 3d 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State of Louisiana v. Brendall Louis Bourque La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Jones 156 So. 3d 126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 920(2) (an appellate court shall consider on appeal “an error that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence”); (the verdict is part of the pleadings and proceedings; therefore, any error therein is renewable under La.
State v. Spikes 66 So. 3d 40 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
14:69 the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed whether these two offenses 3 subjected a defendant to double jeopardy.
State in the Interest of N.W.L. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State ex rel. N.W.L. 994 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State Ex Rel. Nwl 994 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State in the Intrest of M.L. L. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State ex rel. M.L.L. 994 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State Ex Rel. Mll 994 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Froiland 910 So. 2d 956 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
5 Cir. 2/16/05) , , (La.App.
State v. Robinson 896 So. 2d 1115 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Norman 848 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Ignot 701 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Langlois 695 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Furthermore, although the date of release from parole is equated with the expiration of the maximum sentence, (La.App.
State v. Brown 684 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Wilson 635 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Gamberella 633 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Duke 625 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
State v. Tucker 604 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State v. Roquemore 574 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Sylvas 558 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Parkerson v. Lynn 556 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. George 539 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
the Supreme Court held that a defendant is not placed in double jeopardy when, in connection with one incident, the State prosecutes and/or punishes him both for simple burglary and for receiving stolen things.
State v. Jones 525 So. 2d 1149 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State v. Gilmore 522 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State v. Bennett 524 So. 2d 1297 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State v. Rousselle 514 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
State v. LaGarde 513 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Jacobs 493 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Aucoin 488 So. 2d 1336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Sanford, 248 La.
State v. Green 482 So. 2d 1095 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
State v. Sherry 482 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Conerly 479 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Foret 479 So. 2d 526 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Young 469 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Cureaux 467 So. 2d 1377 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Baker 452 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
where the court equated the date of discharge from parole with the expiration of maximum sentence for defendant's last prior felony conviction.
State v. Freeman 444 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Vaughn 431 So. 2d 358 La. 1983
State ex rel. Maness v. Black 434 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
considered the issue of double jeopardy in a prosecution for burglary *149 and receiving stolen things.
State v. France 410 So. 2d 238 La. 1981
are not inconsistent but rather both support the result reached herein.