Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Murdock, 416 So. 2d 103.

38 citing documents.

State v. Bobo 77 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Logwood, 37,178 (La.App.
State v. Gourdine 946 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Blackmon, 1999-391 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Felton Cofield Bey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
State v. Bey 857 So. 2d 1268 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
State v. Schexnaider 852 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
State v. Brown 627 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
we stated in State v. Thompson, supra , "consecutive sentences are justified when, due to the defendant's past conduct or repeated criminality over an extended period, the offender poses an unusual risk to the safety of the public; similar to those posed by habitual offenders."
State v. Miles 613 So. 2d 1047 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
State v. Coleman 574 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Collins 557 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
State v. Washington 550 So. 2d 287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Some of those factors include defendant’s criminal history, State v. Ortego, supra; the dangerousness of the offense, the viciousness of the crimes, the harm done to the victim, (La.App.
State v. Thompson 544 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Barlow 535 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Bates 536 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Parker 503 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Some of those factors include defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, supra ; the dangerousness of the offense, the harm done to the victim, (La.App.
State v. Bates 501 So. 2d 950 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Lombard 501 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
State v. Bailey 494 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Stewart 492 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Moore 482 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Justice Ad Hoc Lobrano as organ of the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld consecutive sentences in a similar crime situation.
State v. Chance 480 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Cottingin 476 So. 2d 1184 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Garcia 477 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Freeman 474 So. 2d 1035 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Pruitt 474 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
[3] See, State v. Williams, supra ; (La.App.
State v. Pruitt 474 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
See, State v. Williams, supra; (La.App.
State v. Johnson 474 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Art. 894.1 is twofold: First, it is used to guide and assist the district courts in the exercise of the broad discretion which those courts have regarding the imposition of fair and proper sentences in criminal cases, and Second, to afford the reviewing court some insight into the trial court's reasoning process, so that the propriety of the sentence can be better evaluated
State v. Guidry 472 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Perry 472 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Torres 470 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Rutecki 469 So. 2d 1005 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Devillier 466 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
The purpose of the article is two-fold: First, to guide and assist the trial court in the exercise of its broad discretion regarding the imposition of a fair and proper sentence in a particular case, State v. Murdock , (La.
State v. Smith 463 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Honore 451 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
noted that the function of the reviewing court is not merely to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court, but, rather, to determine if the lower court abused its broad sentencing discretion.
State v. Allen 451 So. 2d 618 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
*620 The purpose of the article is two-fold; first, to guide and assist the trial court in the exercise of its broad discretion regarding the imposition of a fair and proper sentence in a particular case, and second, to afford the reviewing court some insight into the trial court's reasoning process, so that the propriety of the sentence can be better evaluated
State v. Berthelot 449 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Cox, supra.” *695 On the other hand, because the trial court’s lengthy dissertation on the facts of the case and his application of the guidelines in La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Grant 434 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Hammonds 434 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. James 431 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983