Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Buttner, 411 So. 2d 35.

26 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Akeeley Keshawn Blade La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
State v. Cureaux 116 So. 3d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In support, where the Court reversed the defendant’s conviction and sentence because there was no indication that a bill of information was filed in the case.
State of Louisiana v. Lill Paul Conley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
art. 384; (“An oral Bill of Information is no Bill of Information at all.”).
State v. Conley 94 So. 3d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
art. 384; (“An oral Bill of Information is no Bill of Information at all.”).
State of Louisiana v. Lloyd N. Bynog La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
the defendant was charged with attempted second degree murder by bill of information filed on March 31, 1980.
State v. Massey 51 So. 3d 808 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
this constitutes an error patent.
State v. Rachal 880 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
1 Cir. 1987); see State v. Kendrick, supra, (C.J. Norris concurring in part); see also, (“An oral Bill of Information is no Bill of Information at all.”).
State v. Carcamo 860 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
See, State v. Bloomenstiel, 235 La.
State v. Hamilton 834 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
this constitutes an error patent.
State v. Page 680 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
In support of his argument
State v. Williams 632 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
However, even if a defendant does not assert the existence of an error patent and discoverable upon the mere inspection of the pleadings and minutes, such error would be noted ex proprio motu.
State v. Barclay 591 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
383, 487, 558, 814, 815; (La.
State v. Payne 586 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
State ex rel. Newton 559 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Washington 540 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
However, even if defendant did not assert the existence of an error patent and discoverable upon the mere inspection of the pleadings and minutes, such error would be noted ex proprio motu.
State v. Washington 540 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
However, even if defendant did not assert the existence of an error patent and discoverable upon the mere inspection of the pleadings and minutes, such error would be noted ex proprio motu.
State v. Panepinto 527 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Porterfield 524 So. 2d 1363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Gooden 523 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Riggins 508 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
State v. Scott 499 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Buttner 489 So. 2d 970 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Vidrine 476 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Cox 474 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Williams 449 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
" In accord: State v. De Generes, 194 La.
State v. Smith 447 So. 2d 4 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984