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. Wimberly, 414 So. 2d 666.

164 citing documents.

  • State v. Brown 527 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Coulon 525 So. 2d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Thompson 520 So. 2d 1116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Leonard 514 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State Bond Com'n v. ALL TAXPAYERS 510 So. 2d 662 La. 1987
    Loeb v. Collier, 131 La.
  • State v. Pitre 506 So. 2d 930 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Franklin 501 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    In determining the effect of the amended Section B above quoted, as regards the time of commission and conviction of offenses used to enhance the status of the offender, Justice Dennis, at p. 673 observed: The consistent application of our multiple offender statute and our repeated offense statutes over the years has been that prior convictions, in order to be available for imposition of a greater punishment as a subsequent offender, must precede the commission of the principal offense, tha
  • State v. Wingerter 498 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Adams 497 So. 2d 389 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    a case which in certain aspects closely parallels the situation herein, the court stated: “Article 893, in pertinent part, provides that, after a defendant has been convicted of a non-capital felony, a sentencing judge “may suspend for the first conviction only the imposition or execution of any sentence *
  • State v. Lea 499 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Ducksworth 496 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Davis 496 So. 2d 1197 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    art. 894.1 does not necessarily require remand for resentencing, : "We have not as 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. Aucoin 495 So. 2d 397 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Barnes 489 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    State v. Smith, supra ; (La.
  • State v. Outlaw 485 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • State v. McCue 484 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    art. 893, from suspending the sentence given.
  • State v. Hale 481 So. 2d 1056 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Arvel 481 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Delcambre 479 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Richardson 479 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Piazza 478 So. 2d 1318 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    *1324 (La.1982), (La.App.
  • State v. Godfrey 476 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Buie 477 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Williams 475 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Morgan 472 So. 2d 934 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Thomas 470 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Rivers 470 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
  • State v. Torres 470 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
  • State v. Terrase 468 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
  • State v. Necaise 466 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    wherein the majority 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. Carter 463 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Kennedy 461 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
  • State v. McKethan 459 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Norman 448 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Honore 451 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    the Supreme Court noted: 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. Allen 451 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    The consequences of failure to comply with the dictates of Article 894.1
  • State v. Butler 450 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    The consequences of failure to strictly comply with Art. 894.1 as follows: "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. Swift 449 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Mason 447 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Danos 444 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Turner 440 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2 A
  • State v. Walton 440 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Fontenot 438 So. 2d 1301 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Capdeville 438 So. 2d 1310 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Davis 440 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. McElveen 439 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Reed 437 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    the Supreme Court recognized that upon a defendant’s conviction for a second felony offense, LSA-C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Lee 436 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • State Ex Rel. Graffagnino v. King 436 So. 2d 559 La. 1983
  • State v. Everett 432 So. 2d 250 La. 1983
    Woolsey v. United States, 478 F.2d 139 (8th Cir.1973).