Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Walker, 416 So. 2d 534.

33 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Jacob Purvis AKA Jacob Dewayne Purvis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State v. Purvis 244 So. 3d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
See State v. Dorthey , , 1278-79 (La.1993) ; State v. Walker , , 536 (La.1982) ; State v. Williams , , 818 (La.1976).
State v. Reed 58 So. 3d 1006 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
the court stated that an habitual offender bill of information does not charge a new crime but is only a method of increasing the punishment of second and subsequent felony offense.
State v. Cotton 45 So. 3d 1030 La. 2010
innocence or guilt....” |2(habitual offender bill of information “does not charge a new crime but merely advises the trial court of circumstances ....
State of Louisiana v. Daniel R. Fontenot, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
the supreme court explained that to comply with La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Fontenot 934 So. 2d 935 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
the supreme court explained that to comply with La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Parker 871 So. 2d 317 La. 2004
State v. Wagley 828 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
in support of his argument misplaced.
State v. Woods 828 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
State v. Guidry, 169 La.
State v. Everett 816 So. 2d 1272 La. 2002
State v. Guidry, 169 La.
State v. Davis 792 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Smith, 00-1935 (La.App.
State v. Smith 794 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Jackson 814 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Freeman 770 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
1 Cir.1990), the court considered the purpose of the habitual offender bill of information, stating: A habitual offender bill of information does not charge a new crime but is only a method of increasing the punishment of second and subsequent felony offenses, , *490 536 (La.1982).
State v. Walton 738 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
State v. Morgan 686 So. 2d 1048 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
State v. Jackson 665 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
State v. Wright 664 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
State v. Henderson 648 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 5th 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. Uqdah 613 So. 2d 1113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Banks 612 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
State v. Hunt 573 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Moffett 572 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
State v. Donahue 572 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
A habitual offender bill of information does not charge a new crime but is only a method of increasing the punishment of second and subsequent felony offenses
State v. Poole 566 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Glenn 493 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Milton 469 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Dugas 441 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
for the proposition that simply using the presen-tence investigation report as a factual basis for sentencing does not comply with the requirements of LSA-C.Cr.P.
State v. Belton 441 So. 2d 1195 La. 1983
State v. Jacobs 435 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
the sentence is improper.
State v. Walker 432 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983