Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Simmons, 422 So. 2d 138.

54 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Gary Allen La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana v. Kerri Seeney Monic La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
State Of Louisiana v. Kerry Alexander La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana v. Brian L. Pope La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana Versus Eric Richardson La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
art. 841(A) (“An irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence.”); (La.
State v. Robinson 259 So. 3d 1244 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Jubbard Price 250 So. 3d 230 La. 2018
This court has further clarified: Stated another way, “if any reasonable state of facts can be imagined wherein the greater offense is committed without perpetration of the lesser offense, a verdict for the lesser cannot be responsive.” (quoting State v. Poe, 214 La.
State of Louisiana v. William Shupp La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
(quoting State v. Poe, 214 La.
State v. Shupp 185 So. 3d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
(quoting State v. Poe, 214 La.
State v. Mitchell 181 So. 3d 800 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
P. art. 802; State v. Perkins, supra.
State of Louisiana v. William J. Graham 180 So. 3d 271 La. 2015
This Court has further clarified: Stated another way, ―if any reasonable state of facts can be imagined wherein the greater offense is committed without perpetration of the lesser offense, a verdict for the lesser cannot be responsive.‖ (quoting State v. Poe, 214 La.
State v. Griffin 167 So. 3d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Berroa-Reyes 109 So. 3d 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
art. 841(A) (“An irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence.”); See also: State v. Carter, 10-973, p. 7-8 (La.App.
State v. Ennis 97 So. 3d 575 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
the court stated that “if any reasonable state of facts can be imagined wherein the greater offense is committed without perpetration of the lesser offense, a verdict for the lesser cannot be responsive.” In Simmons , the defendant was charged with and convicted of attempted simple burglary of a pharmacy, a
State v. Seals 83 So. 3d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
5 Cir.1985), writ denied
State of Louisiana v. M. L. Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. McGee 5 So. 3d 315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Ardoin 6 So. 3d 237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
the test for determining if a crime is a lesser and included offense of the offense charged is: whether the definition of the greater offense necessarily includes all the elements of the lesser.
State v. Shaw 969 So. 2d 1233 La. 2007
State of Louisiana v. Warren Todd Dossman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Stated another way, “if any reasonable state of facts can be imagined wherein the greater offense is committed without perpetration of the lesser offense, a verdict for the lesser cannot be responsive.” (quoting State v. Poe, 214 La.
State v. Dossman 940 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
(quoting State v. Poe, 214 La.
State v. Simmons 817 So. 2d 16 La. 2002
(quoting State v. Poe, 214 La.
State v. Tyrone 808 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Young 757 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
the court provided: [T]he test is whether the definition of the greater offense necessarily includes all the elements of the lesser.
State v. Ball 748 So. 2d 1249 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Post 729 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Lynch 729 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
the court stated that the test for determining whether a verdict is responsive is: [W]hether the definition of the greater offense necessarily includes all the elements of the lesser.
State v. Bolden 680 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
State v. Crossley 653 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
State v. Guffey 649 So. 2d 1169 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
State v. Hall 647 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Martin 638 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
State v. Carouthers 618 So. 2d 880 La. 1993
this Court held that a conviction for attempted simple burglary of a pharmacy in violation of La.
State Ex Rel. Mims v. Butler 601 So. 2d 649 La. 1992
State Ex Rel. Porter v. Butler 573 So. 2d 1106 La. 1991
State v. Mallett 552 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Robinson 549 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Mims 535 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Wimberly, 414 So.
State v. Jackson 527 So. 2d 1039 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State v. Harris 510 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Wright 509 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
State v. Obney 505 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Jones 504 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. O'NEAL 501 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Franklin 501 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
which established the rule that in order for the prior offense to enhance a defendant's status as a multiple offender, the offender must have been convicted of the prior offense before the commission of the principal offense.
State ex rel. Murray v. Maggio 488 So. 2d 180 La. 1986
When we granted writs in this case, our principal concerns were that relator had been tried by the wrong number of persons on his conviction in 1958 for attempted simple burglary, and that the state’s use of his two 1971 felony convictions in its multiple bill, the basis for the trial court’s adjudication of relator as a fifth offender
State v. Hamilton 481 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Lewis 478 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Guillot 470 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
art. 807; State v. Marse, supra .
State v. Segura 464 So. 2d 1116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985