Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Robicheaux, 412 So. 2d 1313.

141 citing documents.

State v. Davis 496 So. 2d 1197 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
art. 894.1 : "Sentences must be individualized to be compatible with the offenders as well as the offenses.
State v. Ellzey 496 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Stansell 494 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)
State v. Bailey 494 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
art. 894.1 with respect to a trial judge’s as follows: “Trial judges are granted great discretion in imposing sentences, but even sentences within statutory limits may be excessive under certain circumstances.
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. Williams 483 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Piazza 478 So. 2d 1318 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Garcia 477 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Cox 474 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Lawson 474 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
State v. Johnson 474 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
ercise of the broad discretion which those courts have regarding the imposition of fair and proper sentences in criminal cases, and Second, to afford the reviewing court some insight into the trial court's reasoning process, so that the propriety of the sentence can be better evaluated
State v. White 472 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Salgado 473 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 5th 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
Article 894.1 with respect to a as follows: Sentences must be individualized to be compatible with the offenders as well as the offenses.
State v. Coleman 469 So. 2d 1069 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Appellate review of a as follows: Trial judges are granted great discretion in imposing sentences, but even sentences within statutory limits may be excessive under certain circumstances.
State v. Terrase 468 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
(La.1981; State ex rel Jackson v. Henderson, 260 La.
State v. Devillier 466 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Mosley 466 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
State v. Allen 451 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
trial court in the exercise of its broad discretion regarding the imposition of a fair and proper sentence in a particular case, and second, to afford the reviewing court some insight into the trial court's reasoning process, so that the propriety of the sentence can be better evaluated
State v. Foley 448 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
as authority, defense counsel contends the sentences are excessive because they have failed to follow the American Bar Association's recommendations.
State v. Baker 447 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Woods 444 So. 2d 1332 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Johnson 444 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Bridges 444 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
One case in which the court vacated a
State v. Shields 444 So. 2d 287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Sisk 444 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Wade 442 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Lewis, supra ; (La.
State v. Boutte 441 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
on which defendant relies, wherein our Supreme Court found a 25-year sentence for a first offender without possibility of parole appeared to be arbitrary and excessive.
State v. Johnson 440 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Paul 439 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Murray 436 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
State v. Gray 434 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Parrish 434 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Square 433 So. 2d 104 La. 1983
State v. Easley 432 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Buckenburger 428 So. 2d 966 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Lewis 416 So. 2d 921 La. 1982
State v. Bosworth 415 So. 2d 912 La. 1982
1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); State ex rel.
State v. Yarbrough 418 So. 2d 503 La. 1982
Thus, in which the defendants were only told that they had a "right to remain silent," leaving a record which was silent concerning their awareness of the privilege against self-incrimination at trial.
State v. Age 417 So. 2d 1183 La. 1982