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. Clark, 391 So. 2d 1174.

48 citing documents.

  • State Of Louisiana v. Charles Ray Thompson La. 2023
  • State Of Louisiana v. Kevin O'brien Allen La. 2022
  • La. 2020
  • State of Louisiana v. Will Antonio Celestine La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    However, 10 the supreme court noted a drastic change in penalty is relevant and should be taken into consideration when determining whether a sentence is excessive.
  • State v. Arceneaux 271 So. 3d 362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    However, as noted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Clark , , 1176 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Eric Joseph Breaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    Defendant cited the supreme court’s decision in State v. 7 Clark, that an ameliorative change in the penalty provision was a factor that the trial judge could consider during sentencing.
  • State v. Breaux 269 So. 3d 938 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    Defendant cited the supreme court's decision in State v. Clark , that an ameliorative change in the penalty provision was a factor that the trial judge could consider during sentencing.
  • State v. Thompson 189 So. 3d 1139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    this court concluded that an ameliorative change in the penalty provision of a statute which occurs after the commission of the offense is a factor , to be weighed by the trial judge in imposing sentence.
  • State of Louisiana v. Brenda Langlinais La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • State v. Langlinais 27 So. 3d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State of Louisiana v. James Oliver McKeehan, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    We acknowledge Louisiana’s prior case law on the subject has adhered to the rule that “the law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense is determinative of the penalty which the convicted accused must suffer.” see also, accord, (Imposition of a sentence under a statute in effect at the time an offense was committed rather than lesser sentence provided for by an amended statute which was enacted after commission of the charged offense and prior to conviction did not deny defendant d
  • State v. Robert 951 So. 2d 1057 La. 2007
    Acts 403 have no bearing on defendant’s sentence, either directly or as a guide for what a trial judge might deem an appropriate punishment, 2 (“Inherent in mitigatory changes in penalty provisions of an offense is a legislative determination ...
  • State v. Dick 951 So. 2d 124 La. 2007
    see also, accord, (Imposition of a sentence under *135 a statute in effect at the time an offense was committed rather than lesser sentence provided for by an amended statute which was enacted after commission of the charged offense and prior to conviction did not deny defenda
  • State v. Pulliam 920 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    see also, accord, (Imposition of a sentence under a statute in effect at the time an offense was committed rather than lesser sentence provided for by an amended statute which was enacted after commission of the charged offense and prior to conviction did not deny defendant d
  • State of Louisiana v. David James Pulliam La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    We acknowledge Louisiana’s prior case law on the subject has adhered to the rule that “the law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense is determinative of the penalty which the convicted accused must suffer.” see also, accord, (Imposition of a sentence under a statute in effect at the time an offense was committed rather than lesser sentence provided for by an amended statute which was enacted after commission of the charged offense and prior to conviction did not deny defendant d
  • State v. Williams 905 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    to support his argument, we note that the Clark court reiterated “the rule in this state that the penalty provision in effect at the time of the offense is the applicable provision.” Id.
  • State v. Parker 871 So. 2d 317 La. 2004
    at 391 , 17 So.2d at 560 ; see also, accord
  • State v. McCoy 869 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the trial court erred by not taking into account the recent amendment of a statute proscribing theft of livestock, which lessened the penalty for the first offense.
  • State v. Howard 859 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Appellate counsel filed a brief in which he argued excessive sentence, contending that although the habitual offender sentence in effect at the date of the offense was mandatory life imprisonment
  • State v. White 850 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    State v. Sugasti, 01-3407 (La.6/21/02)
  • State v. Schieffler 841 So. 2d 1000 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
  • State v. Williams 841 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    [13] State v. Ventress, 817 So.2d at 384 ( (La.
  • State v. Davis 841 So. 2d 952 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    [32] State v. Ventress, 817 So.2d at 384 ( (La.
  • State v. Wade 832 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    See, e.g., State v. Sugasti, 01-3407 (La.6/21/02), ; State v. Keith, 35,644 (La.App.
  • State v. Sanders 827 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • State v. Drane 828 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Warren 824 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
  • State v. Sugasti 820 So. 2d 518 La. 2002
  • State v. Martin 822 So. 2d 153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    and contends that, even if the law in effect at the time of the offense is applicable, the judge was obliged to consider that the legislature reduced the penalty for his offense.
  • State v. Mayeux 820 So. 2d 526 La. 2002
    see also, accord, (Imposition of a sentence under a statute in effect at the time an offense was committed rather than lesser sentence provided for by an amended statute which was enacted after commission of the charged offense and prior to conviction did not deny defendant d
  • State v. Hilbun 821 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Johnson 821 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    as similar to his own situation.
  • State v. Cook 820 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    As part of his argument on appeal, defendant, asserts that even if the new penalty provision in Act No. 403 is found not to be applied retroactively, the trial court should at least be required to consider the legislative intent behind the revision in determining the appropriate sentence.
  • State v. Ventress 817 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
  • State v. Rivers 817 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
  • State v. Flagg 815 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    which held that the law in effect at the time the offense is committed is applicable.
  • State v. Keith 811 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Moore 809 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • State v. Martin 809 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    In fact, although the statute in effect at the time of the commission of the offense applies, subsequent amendments have been recognized to be relevant in sentencing: [I]n Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 , 96 S.Ct.
  • State v. Sugasti 802 So. 2d 943 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    In support of his position
  • State v. Hall 775 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Greer 572 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • State v. Hebert 543 So. 2d 637 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Hudnall 480 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    The defendant contends that the sentence imposed is unconstitutionally excessive in light of the Supreme Court’s deci *937 , in which the Supreme Court found a sentence of 30 months at hard labor for theft of livestock to be excessive.
  • State v. Cook 466 So. 2d 40 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    In this regard, (La.App.
  • State ex rel. Sterling 441 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Bosworth 415 So. 2d 912 La. 1982
  • State v. Carey 392 So. 2d 443 La. 1981