Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Robinson, 423 So. 2d 1053.

44 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. William Chester Farry Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
(explaining that the prohibition on ex post facto laws, “extends to the enforcement of any enactment which changes the punishment to inflict a greater penalty for the crime than that authorized for the crime at the time of its commission.”); State v. Vail, 17-354 (La.App.
State v. Farry 270 So. 3d 673 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
See also State v. Robinson , , 1063 (La.1982) (explaining that the prohibition on ex post facto laws, "extends to the enforcement of any enactment which changes the punishment to inflict a greater penalty for the crime than that authorized for the crime at the time of its commission."); State v. Vail , 17-354 (La.App.
State v. Vail 236 So. 3d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Robinson , , 1063 (La.1982).
State of Louisiana v. William Felix Vail La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
“This prohibition extends to the enforcement of any enactment which changes the punishment to inflict a greater penalty for the crime than that authorized for the crime at the time of its commission.”
State v. Jones 188 So. 3d 268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State v. Johnson, 27, 522 (La.App.2d Cir.12/06/95), ; State v. Fuller, 32, 734 (La.App.2d Cir.12/17/99, ), writ denied, 2000-0159 (La.8/31/00), .
State v. Armstead 159 So. 3d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Odoms 94 So. 3d 166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Jacobs 37 So. 3d 994 La. 2010
[1] in which a judge, previously recused in a first degree murder prosecution, impanelled a new grand jury which returned a subsequent indictment against the defendant after the first degree murder indictment was quashed.
State v. Johnson 33 So. 3d 328 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Gutweiler 979 So. 2d 469 La. 2008
v. Castex Energy, Inc., 04-968, p. 11 (La.1/19/05), ; -57 (La.1982).
State v. Desoto 968 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
In support of its argument that the defendant's sentence is not excessive
State of Louisiana v. Jake C. Desoto La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
In support of its argument that the defendant’s sentence is not excessive
State v. Arita 900 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
Driscoll v. Stucker 893 So. 2d 32 La. 2005
State v. Terrell 858 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
the trial court sentenced the defendant to the maximum sentence of five years.
State v. Williams 833 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
the supreme court explained that when testimony taken at a prior proceeding is to be used at trial, there must be an examination into whether there has been a violation of the defendant's right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of th
State v. Rivers 817 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
State v. Robinson 811 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
which also addressed the admissibility of preliminary hearing testimony.
State v. Jones 778 So. 2d 1131 La. 2001
State v. Hutchinson 764 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
Payne, 633 So.2d at 702 ().
State v. Fuller 759 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Johnson, 27,522 (La.App.
State v. Held 748 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Woodberry 686 So. 2d 984 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
State v. Johnson 665 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Lapoint 635 So. 2d 554 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Payne 633 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Adams 609 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
The Louisiana Supreme Court, (La.
State v. Smith 594 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
State v. Ashley 569 So. 2d 276 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
1330 , 465 U.S. 1051 , 79 L.Ed.2d 725 (1984); (La.App.
State v. Welch 550 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Telsee, supra; (La.
State v. Nicholas 548 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Our Supreme Court, held that when testimony taken at a prior hearing or proceeding is to be used at trial, there must be an examination into whether there has been a violation of defendant’s constitutional rights.
State v. Theard 527 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
the court, set forth five conditions which must be met before a transcript of a prior hearing may be introduced as evidence at a subsequent trial: (1) the defendant must have been represented by counsel at the earlier hearing; (2) the witness testi
State v. Wade 470 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Article 893.1 was deemed inapplicable in sentencing only because it was enacted after the commission of the crime.
State v. Johnson 463 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
before testimony given at a prior hearing may be introduced in evidence at a subsequent trial, without offending the confrontation and cross-examination clauses of the federal and state constitutions, certain conditions must be met: (1) defendant must have been represented by counsel at the earlier he
State v. Hogan 454 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Article 893.1 was deemed inapplicable in sentencing only because it was enacted after the commission of the crime.
State v. Casimier 454 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Socco, supra; State v. Telsee, supra
State v. Bethley 452 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Wisenor 452 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Deville 451 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Nelson 449 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Peters 441 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
State v. Davis 430 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983