Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Williams, 412 So. 2d 1327.

49 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. James D. Flemones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
19 subject only to the constitutional prohibition against excessive sentences.”
State of Louisiana v. Deanna Gaspard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Gaspard 49 So. 3d 971 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Smith 922 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
State of Louisiana v. Darwin Gauthier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
held: The only relevant question on review, however, was “whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.” ().
State v. Gauthier 916 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Major 898 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State of Louisiana v. Arthur Major III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
615, 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996), the Louisiana Supreme Court held: The only relevant question on review, however, was “whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.” ().
State v. JTS 865 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State of Louisiana v. J.T.S. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
[is] ‘whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.’ ().” We have reviewed cases in which the defendants, first time offenders, were convicted of aggravated oral sexual battery or aggravated incest to assist in our determination of whether Defendant’s sentences were excessive.
State v. J.T.S. 865 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
[is] ‘whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more | ^appropriate.’ ().” We have reviewed cases in which the defendants, first time offenders, were convicted of aggravated oral sexual battery or aggravated incest to assist in our determination of whether Defendant’s sentences were excessive.
State v. Dabney 848 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
State v. Dixon 852 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
[is] ‘whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.’ ().” Thus, the imposition of a thirty-year sentence was not an abuse of discretion.
State v. Moore 827 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
State v. Marcotte 817 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
State v. Hymes 787 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
State v. PM 786 So. 2d 857 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
State v. P.M. 786 So. 2d 857 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. McBride 773 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
State v. Hardaway 715 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
State v. Cook 674 So. 2d 957 La. 1996
State v. Brown 645 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
State v. Searile 643 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Wimberly 618 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
-21 (La.1982); , 1328 n. 1 (La.1982).
State v. Higginbotham 541 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Bouie 532 So. 2d 791 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
stated: "Both arrest and convictions may be considered in imposing sentence, as long as defendant, as here, is given notice of the derogatory information and is afforded a chance to speak in mitigation.
State v. Wingerter 498 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
State v. Prejean 496 So. 2d 1309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Gill 488 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. White 476 So. 2d 1162 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
appeal after remand State v. Perry, supra.
State v. House 476 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Guidry 472 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
& n. 1 (La.1981), appeal after remand
State v. Perry 472 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. O'Guin 467 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Cook 466 So. 2d 40 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
In this regard, (La.App.
State v. Dowden 461 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Baker 447 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. James 447 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
the Supreme Court held that the trial judge did not err when he took into consideration the defendant's prior record of numerous arrests, even though he had never been prosecuted for those arrests and only had one prior conviction in 1967 for the crime of illegal carrying of weapons.
State v. King 446 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Johnson 446 So. 2d 1371 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
1st Cir. 1983); (La.App.
State v. Humphrey 445 So. 2d 1155 La. 1984
State v. Stone 438 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Cruz 438 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
(La.19820.” where the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: “[t]he choice of sentences within the statutory range lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge, subject only to the constitutional prohibition against excessive sentences.
State v. Horne 438 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Haney 434 So. 2d 1264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
See: State v. Fleming, supra.
State v. Williams 430 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Fleming 428 So. 2d 947 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
wherein the Supreme Court held that, while the defendant's family and job status, his record of being substantially free of criminal activity for a long period, and the non-violent nature of his forgery offense weighed heavily in favor of probation, a five year hard labor sentence was not an abuse of discre
State v. Burnette 419 So. 2d 835 La. 1982
State v. Lanclos 419 So. 2d 475 La. 1982