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. Langendorfer, 389 So. 2d 1271.

55 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana Versus Noel Austin La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
  • State of Louisiana v. Kevin Robert Sterling La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
  • State of Louisiana v. Carlos M. Smith La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
  • State of Louisiana v. Juan Dedilos Villarreal Gamboa La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
    In [State v.] MacDonald|, ] and [State v.] Langendorfer[, ], this Court likewise looked beyond the record waiver of constitutional rights in order to determine ‘ Boykin vy.
  • State Of Louisiana v. Kyran Javon Vaughn La. 2023
    n here is complicated by the bifurcated appeals that resulted from the State’ s decision to pursue recidivist sentence enhancement during the pendency of the first appeal, we think it sufficient to find Lyles does not apply here because a conviction is a conviction, while this court has consistently found a habitual offender proceeding is “merely part of sentencing.” -77 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Ladray Bias, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
    om the State’s decision to pursue recidivist sentence enhancement during the pendency of the first appeal, we think it sufficient to find Lyles does not apply here because a conviction is a conviction, while this court has consistently found a habitual offender proceeding is “merely part of sentencing.” - 77 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Dewayne Sylvester La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
    om the State’s decision to pursue recidivist sentence enhancement during the pendency of the first appeal, we think it sufficient to find Lyles does not apply here because a conviction is a conviction, while this court has consistently found a habitual offender proceeding is “merely part of sentencing.” - 77 (La.
  • La. 2020
    ion here is complicated by the bifurcated appeals that resulted from the State’s decision to pursue recidivist sentence enhancement during the pendency of the first appeal, we think it sufficient to find Lyles does not apply here because a conviction is a conviction, while this c ourt has consistently found a habitual offender proceeding is “merely part of sentencing.” – 77 (La.
  • State v. Turner 259 So. 3d 1089 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    State v. Langendorfer , , 1277 (La.
  • George Mason, Jr. v. Deanna Harbison Mason La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    6/29/99), (), wherein the supreme court held: “We have previously held that a judge’s ‘slip of the tongue’ is not reversible error.” Thus, Deanna’s case was appropriately dismissed, either by involuntary dismissal or peremptory exception of no cause of action.
  • Mason v. Mason 203 So. 3d 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    6/29/99), (), wherein the supreme court held: “We have previously held that a judge’s ‘slip of the tongue’ is not reversible error.” Thus, Deanna’s case was appropriately dismissed, either by involuntary dismissal or peremptory exception of no cause of action.
  • State v. Williams 158 So. 3d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    -26 (La.1982); -62 (La.1974); State v. Holloway, 12-0926, p. 3 (La.App.
  • State v. Moore 134 So. 3d 1265 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Conclusory statements at trial as to the “rape victim” and the “rape kit ” the Supreme Court held that use of the phrase “rape kit” at the defendant’s trial was not prejudicial.
  • State v. Holloway 120 So. 3d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    see also, State v. Picot, 98-2194, p. 1 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Marcus Quinn, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    The fourth circuit reversed the trial court’s ruling, stating the following: It is well-established by the Louisiana jurisprudence that a second multiple bill hearing does not place a defendant in double jeopardy because “[s]uch a proceeding is merely a part of sentencing.”
  • State v. Quinn 38 So. 3d 1102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    The fourth circuit reversed the trial court’s ruling, stating the following: It is well-established by the Louisiana jurisprudence that a second multiple bill hearing does not place a defendant in double jeopardy because “[sjuch a proceeding is merely a part of sentencing.”
  • State v. Loyden 899 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • State of Louisiana v. Booker Earl Loyden La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Davis 834 So. 2d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    However, it is well-settled that double jeopardy does not apply to a multiple offender proceeding because “[s]uch a proceeding is merely a part of sentencing.”
  • State v. Boykin 774 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    State v. Picot, 98-2194 (La.App.
  • Folse v. Folse 738 So. 2d 1040 La. 1999
    (where judge's instruction regarding the waiver of Fifth Amendment rights might result in commission up to two years instead of twenty did not invalidate the plea); LaFrance v. Bourgeois, 97-376 (La.App.
  • State v. Picot 724 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
  • State v. Ledet 701 So. 2d 1067 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
  • State v. Boykin 688 So. 2d 1250 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    and its progeny, double jeopardy principles are not involved in a second recidivist hearing; but, compare the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 , 109 S.Ct.
  • State v. Baum 663 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    the defendant argued that his prior guilty plea should not have been used to enhance his sentence because he was misinformed by the trial judge as to what the maximum sentence was.
  • State v. Dean 643 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • State v. Carter 630 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • State v. Hongo 625 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    in ruling on the inapplicability of double jeopardy to the habitual offender proceeding stated, "[A] multiple offender proceeding is not the trial of a criminal charge.
  • State v. Dorthey 623 So. 2d 1276 La. 1993
    State v. Stott, supra ; -1277 (La.1980).
  • State v. Banks 612 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • State v. Armstead 599 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • State v. Dean 588 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • State v. Blue 591 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • State v. McFarland 578 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • State v. Scott 566 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    reviewing an advisement which repeatedly referred to the right "to be confronted by witnesses against you" (emphasis added), our Supreme Court found the requirements of Boykin to have been met.
  • State v. Anderson 554 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Bennett 544 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    and cases cited therein; (La.App.
  • State v. Harrison 541 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    a juror realized during a rape trial that she had taught the rape victim in school.
  • State v. Glenn 513 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    there were two multiple offender hearings.
  • State v. Brown 504 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. McClinton 492 So. 2d 162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    However, to make permissible his question to establish the possibility the sperm found on the victim’s bedsheets was that of her boyfriend.
  • State v. Milton 469 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Easton 463 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Sensley 460 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Jenkins 456 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Miller 449 So. 2d 1361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    as authority for allowing the testimony.
  • State v. Vaughn 448 So. 2d 1260 La. 1984
    However, there are instances where evidence of prior sexual conduct is admissible.
  • State v. Belton 441 So. 2d 1195 La. 1983
  • State v. Johnson 442 So. 2d 1141 La. 1983
    1620 , 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972)
  • State v. Joseph 425 So. 2d 1261 La. 1983