Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Bourgeois, 388 So. 2d 359.

48 citing documents.

State v. Williams 185 So. 3d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Morgan 34 So. 3d 1127 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Sims 914 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Solomon 634 So. 2d 1330 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: The statutory definition of "arrest" is keyed to the concept of restraint.
State v. Evins 626 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
State v. Foley 570 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
State v. Welch 550 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Ryan 546 So. 2d 1388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Tyler 548 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
The restraint may be imposed by force or may result from the submission of the person arrested to the custody of the one arresting him.” the court states: The statutory definition of “arrest” is keyed to the concept of restraint.
State v. Bradford 535 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Battista 517 So. 2d 1096 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Burns 504 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Cathey 493 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
State v. Scott 490 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
1981); we have been careful to limit this rule to prevent the defendant from being relieved of all obligations for objection in connection with sentence review.
State v. Larsen 489 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Pautard 485 So. 2d 909 La. 1986
2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973)
State v. Carter 485 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
State v. Miles 482 So. 2d 938 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Thomas 482 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973) and concluded: "Upon a review of the surrounding circumstances, we cannot say that the trial judge's finding of voluntariness was in error.
State v. Taylor 468 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Burks 466 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Williams 454 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
While we have held that there is no need for a contemporaneous objection for the issue of excessive sentence to be raised upon appeal, we have been careful to limit this rule to prevent the defendant from being relieved of all obligations for objection in connection with sentence review.
State v. Owen 453 So. 2d 1202 La. 1984
State v. Bearden 449 So. 2d 1109 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
State v. Jackson 450 So. 2d 621 La. 1984
State v. Ossey 446 So. 2d 280 La. 1984
State v. Sterling 444 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Guidry 442 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
State v. Mitchell 443 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973)
State v. Edwards 440 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Foster 437 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Edwards 434 So. 2d 395 La. 1983
State v. Harriman 434 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Montero 433 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
State v. Square 433 So. 2d 104 La. 1983
State v. Oubichon 422 So. 2d 1140 La. 1982
While we have held that there is no need for a contemporaneous objection for the issue of excessive sentence to be raised upon appeal, we have been careful to limit this rule to prevent the defendant from being relieved of all obligations for objection in connection with sentence review.
State v. Copeland 419 So. 2d 899 La. 1982
State v. Walker 416 So. 2d 534 La. 1982
State v. Winn 412 So. 2d 1337 La. 1982
2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973)
State v. Coleman 412 So. 2d 532 La. 1982
State v. Cupit 408 So. 2d 1108 La. 1981
State v. Smith 407 So. 2d 652 La. 1981
State v. Spruell 403 So. 2d 63 La. 1981
City of Baton Rouge v. Malik 404 So. 2d 883 La. 1981
State v. Wolfe 398 So. 2d 1117 La. 1981
1788 , 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968)
State v. Carey 392 So. 2d 443 La. 1981
State v. Fields 394 So. 2d 597 La. 1981
State v. Smith 389 So. 2d 1262 La. 1980
September 3, 1980, No. 66,656; (La.