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. Wimberly, 414 So. 2d 666.

164 citing documents.

  • State v. Harris 787 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    ess than fully articulated record indicating that it has considered not only aggravating circumstances but also factors militating for a less severe sentence, a remand for resentenc-ing is appropriate only when “there appear[s] to be a substantial possibility that the defendant’s complaints of an excessive sentence ha[ve] merit.”
  • State v. Robichaux 788 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Algere 780 So. 2d 1131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    ess than fully articulated record indicating that it has considered not only aggravating circumstances but also factors militating for a less severe sentence, a remand for resentenc-ing is appropriate only when “there appear[s] to be a substantial possibility that the defendant’s complaints of an excessive sentence ha[ve] merit.”
  • State v. Rodriguez 781 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Scott 780 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • State v. Martin 788 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Clem 779 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    art. 875; State v. Alexander, 97-169 (La.App.
  • State v. Hall 775 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Guy 775 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Mims 769 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Dank 764 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Hayden 767 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    1 Cir. 4/23/93) ; , writ denied, State v. Armstrong, 32,279 (La.App.
  • State v. Monette 758 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Rose 750 So. 2d 1085 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Armstrong 743 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    art. 875; State v. Alexander, 97-169 (La.App.
  • State v. Maschek 705 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Our review of the record presented to us reveals a “substantial possibility that the defendant’s complaints of an excessive sentence ha[ve] merit.”
  • State v. Maschek 706 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    “substantial possibility that the defendant’s complaints of an excessive sentence ha[ve] merit.”
  • State v. Soraparu 703 So. 2d 608 La. 1997
  • State v. Peterson 696 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Alexander 696 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • City of Baton Rouge v. Ross 654 So. 2d 1311 La. 1995
    [5] ( on rehearing ), quoting State ex rel.
  • State v. Bernard 649 So. 2d 1145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    |4In support of the second paragraph of the introductory comment above
  • State v. Smith 635 So. 2d 509 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    our Supreme Court, in considering the application of La.C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Bennett 623 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    In fact, a sentence imposed without compliance with former LSA-C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Porter 615 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    the Supreme Court stated: In those cases in which we have vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing in full, recorded compliance with Article 894.1, our action was not *515 prompted simply by the sentencing judge's failure to give his reasons for the penalty imposed.
  • State v. Johnson 604 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Followed State Ex Rel. Mims v. Butler 601 So. 2d 649 La. 1992
    The Fifth Circuit concluded that: Since the legislature could have clearly stated its intention if it chose to do so, and since it did not repudiate the rule established in the Simmons case by the 1982 amendment, for the reasons stated by Justice Dennis in the [ State v. ] Wimberly [ ] case we adhere to the rule established by the prior jurisprudence.
  • State v. Davis 584 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • State v. Davis 584 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • State v. Clements 578 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
    the Supreme Court of Louisiana said at page 672: “We have not as of yet acted under our supervisory, administrative or rule making powers to require that sentencing judges state basic facts and reasons in every case.
  • State v. Edwards 575 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Laird 572 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • State v. Green 558 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • State v. Scales 558 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • State v. Frank 549 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    State v. Wimberly, supra
  • Logan v. Louisiana Dock Co., Inc. 541 So. 2d 182 La. 1989
    Const. (1974); Jordan v. Travelers Ins.
  • State v. Berry 534 So. 2d 70 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Mims 535 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    State v. Sherer, 411 So.
  • State v. Stevens 532 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Edwards 532 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Clayton 532 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    the court stated: “In those cases in which we have vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing in full, recorded compliance with Article 894.1, our action was not prompted simply by the sentencing judge’s failure to give his reasons for the penalty imposed.
  • State v. Fontenot 532 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Matthews 532 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Dugas 527 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Dugas 527 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Deville 525 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Charrier 525 So. 2d 591 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Gunter 525 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Bruno 526 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Hodges 526 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988