Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Stott, 395 So. 2d 714.

30 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Kyron A. Theophile La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
In support of this argument, (La.
State of Louisiana v. Curtis Cheley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State v. Cheley 270 So. 3d 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Stott , ; State v. Walker , (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Marcus Quinn, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Quinn 38 So. 3d 1102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Mays 929 So. 2d 1231 La. 2006
State v. Mays 917 So. 2d 1185 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Wilson 833 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Richey v. Richey 733 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
State v. Martin 679 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State v. Wright 664 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
State v. Dean 643 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Hongo 625 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
3 Cir.1983), has described the habitual offender proceeding as being "in the nature of an enhancement of penalty rather than a prosecution for a crime,"
State v. Dorthey 623 So. 2d 1276 La. 1993
State v. Williams 596 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
State v. Jenkins 595 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
In reaching its decision the Alexander court recognized that, although the habitual offender proceeding is in the nature of an enhancement of penalty, rather than a prosecution, State v. Stott principles of fundamental fairness dictated by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit inordinate delays
State v. Dean 588 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
State v. Powell 566 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Thompson 539 So. 2d 1008 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Nolan 503 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Alexander 503 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Collins 495 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
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
However, a habitual offender proceeding is in the nature of penalty enhancement rather than a prosecution, and is not a trial but is part of the sentencing procedure.
State v. Behn 445 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Belton 441 So. 2d 1195 La. 1983
State v. Jacobs 435 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Walker, supra .
State v. Walker 432 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Johnson 432 So. 2d 815 La. 1983
State v. Walker 416 So. 2d 534 La. 1982
State v. Alexander, supra .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by