DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Russell, 397 So. 2d 1319.

35 citing documents.

  • State v. Jones 152 So. 3d 235 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
  • State of Louisiana v. Kevin T. Arndt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    In support of his claim of excessiveness, (La.App.
  • State v. Michels 726 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Hardy 715 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    However, a remand for more complete compliance with Article 894.1 is not necessary when the sentence imposed is not apparently severe, or where the record otherwise clearly illumines the sentencing choice, on rehearing.
  • State v. James 573 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • State v. Anderson 561 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    in which a clerical error did not void the defendant’s conviction since it worked no prejudice on the defendants, where the bill of information adequately informed the accused.
  • State v. Benjamin 537 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Smith 520 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    This court has indicated, however, that a remand for more complete compliance with Article 894.1 is not necessary when the sentence imposed is not apparently severe, *1258 (La.1981), or where the record otherwise clearly illumines the sentencing choice, (On Rehearing).
  • State v. Gilliam 503 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Donahue 499 So. 2d 1280 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Creel 490 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Isaac 487 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    When the sentence imposed is not apparently severe, or where the record otherwise illumines the sentencing choice, (La.
  • State v. Smith 473 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Coleman 469 So. 2d 1069 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    or where the record otherwise clearly illumines the sentencing choice, (on rehearing).
  • State v. Mosley 466 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    1981) on rehearing; (La.App.
  • State v. Brogdon 457 So. 2d 616 La. 1984
  • State v. Foley 456 So. 2d 979 La. 1984
  • State v. Swift 449 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Coghlan 446 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Lathers 444 So. 2d 96 La. 1983
  • State v. Jones 441 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Vallare 430 So. 2d 1336 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Smith 430 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
  • State ex rel. Maness v. Black 434 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    held that mere possession of the stolen property does not give rise to a presumption that the possessor was aware of the fact that it was stolen.
  • State v. Telsee 425 So. 2d 1251 La. 1983
    State v. Williams, supra ; (La.
  • State v. Williams 420 So. 2d 1116 La. 1982
  • State v. Lathers 414 So. 2d 678 La. 1982
  • State v. Robicheaux 412 So. 2d 1313 La. 1982
    This court has indicated, however, that a remand for more complete compliance with Article 894.1 is not necessary when the sentence imposed is not apparently severe, or where the record otherwise clearly illumines the sentencing choice, (On Rehearing).
  • State v. Lejeune 412 So. 2d 1386 La. 1982
    may vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing, when the reasons for an apparently severe sentence in relation to a particular offender and the actual offense committed do not appear in the record.” See also
  • State v. Belgard 410 So. 2d 720 La. 1982
  • State v. Washington 406 So. 2d 191 La. 1981
  • State v. Bostick 406 So. 2d 150 La. 1981
  • State v. Washington 406 So. 2d 191 La. 1981
  • State v. Comeaux 408 So. 2d 1099 La. 1981
  • State v. Hogan 403 So. 2d 1210 La. 1981