Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Robertson, 386 So. 2d 906.

16 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. William Shupp La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
See State v. Rabun, 38,655 (La.App.2d Cir.08/18/04), (convictions for armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery violated double jeopardy); (convictions for first degree murder and armed robbery when armed robbery was the underlying offense violated double jeopardy); State v. Joseph, 2005-186 (La.App.
State v. Shupp 185 So. 3d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Rabun, 38,655 (La.App.2d Cir.08/18/04), (convictions for armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery violated double jeopardy); (convictions for first degree murder and armed robbery when armed robbery was the underlying offense violated double jeopardy); State v. Joseph, 2005-186 (La.App.3d Cir.11/02/05), (convictions for armed robbery and aggravated burglary violated double jeopardy).
State v. Roe 177 So. 3d 125 La. 2015
(“In the instant case, since defendant has been convicted of armed robbery, which includes theft as an essential element thereof, he cannot be convicted of receiving stolen things as a matter of law.”); see also State ex rel.
State v. Roe 151 So. 3d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
9 the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to quash, rejecting the argument that the principles of double jeopardy barred his prosecution for receiving stolen things in violation of La.
State v. Franklin 142 So. 3d 295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Christopher Sherman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
See State v. Rabun, 38,655 (La.App.2d Cir.08/18/04), (convictions for armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery violated double jeopardy); (convictions for first degree murder and armed robbery when armed robbery was the underlying offense violated double jeopardy); State v. Joseph, 2005-186 (La.App.
State v. Spikes 66 So. 3d 40 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In ruling that those two offenses violated double jeopardy, in which it stated, “a defendant cannot be prosecuted for receiving stolen things, after having been convicted and sentenced for armed robbery, where the thing received and the object of the theft in the armed robbery are the same.” Id.
State v. Williams 54 So. 3d 1129 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
See State v. Rabun, 38,655 (La.App.2d Cir.08/18/04), (convictions for armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery violated double jeopardy); (convictions for first degree murder and armed robbery when armed robbery was the underlying offense violated double jeopardy); State v. Joseph, 2005-186 (La.App.
STATE EX REL. BRADLEY v. State 1 So. 3d 460 La. 2009
(defen-dant cannot “be prosecuted for receiving stolen things, after having been convicted and sentenced for armed robbery, where the thing received and the object of the theft in the armed robbery are the same.”); State v. Baptiste, 03-2075, pp. 5-6 (La.App.
State v. Peden 875 So. 2d 934 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
the Supreme Court found that Article 482 applies not only where a defendant is charged with theft, but also where the defendant is charged with a crime of which theft is an essential element.
State v. Baptiste 875 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
State v. Norman 799 So. 2d 619 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
State v. Jacobi 516 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State ex rel. Maness v. Black 434 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
as authority for the legal theory that a defendant cannot be both guilty of burglary and of receiving stolen things.
State v. France 410 So. 2d 238 La. 1981
are not inconsistent but rather both support the result reached herein.
State v. Bell 404 So. 2d 974 La. 1981