Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Jett, 419 So. 2d 844.

120 citing documents.

State v. Smith 457 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Kellogg 452 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
While it has been held that the review of possible constitutional error in regard to excessive sentences is not absolutely precluded by a defendant’s agreement to plead guilty or to receive a particular sentence [], it has also been held in several recent cases that a defendant who accepts a sentence under a plea bargain may not later assert that the sentence is excessive or that the trial judge failed to adequately comply with the sentencing guidelines of La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Coats 449 So. 2d 688 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
Relying on *690 (1st Cir.1983) considered a review of the defendant's sentence for excessiveness appropriate although he pled guilty to aggravated burglary because the plea bargain did not include a bargain for the sentence.
State v. Westfall 446 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Rogers 445 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. England 442 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Bell 438 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Carter 436 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Lewis 434 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
where another court composed of three ad hoc justices (all of the above cited cases were decided by mixed courts) reviewed the defendant's sentence even though a sentence agreement had been made.
State v. Edwards 432 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Additionally, the Louisiana Supreme Court indicated that review of a sentence for excessiveness was not absolutely precluded by a defendant’s agreement to plead guilty or receive a particular sentence.
State v. Benton 432 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Smith 430 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
Nevertheless, an accused may on appeal challenge a sentence imposed by plea bargaining as excessive.
State v. Dirden 430 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
State v. Johnson 429 So. 2d 870 La. 1983
For a complete historical discussion of these amendments, see
State v. Lewis 430 So. 2d 1286 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Beasley 430 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
[5] wherein the Supreme Court did not overrule State v. Gray, supra, but did state that it "concluded that our review of possible constitutional error is not absolutely precluded by a defendant's agreement to plead guilty or to receive a particular sentence."
State v. Buckenburger 428 So. 2d 966 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Also, in a recent case, the court expressly acknowledged the decision in Gray , and did not overrule that holding; it did state that it "concluded that our review of possible constitutional error is not absolutely precluded by a defendant's agreement to plead guilty or to receive a particular sentence."
State v. Barrios 425 So. 2d 980 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
State v. Watson 423 So. 2d 1130 La. 1982
State v. Robinson 421 So. 2d 229 La. 1982