DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Sherer, 437 So. 2d 276.

102 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Allen Clayton Fulks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
    1 Cir.1983), writ denied, whether the defendant constitutes an unusual risk of danger to the public, the potential for the defendant’s rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. O'Shay Devan Hicks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
    1st Cir.1983), writ denied, whether the defendant constitutes an unusual risk of danger to the public, the potential for the defendant’s rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Cassetti Dewayne Brown, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    which found: Because the function of the consecutive sentence should be similar to the sentence imposed on habitual or dangerous offenders, sentences for crimes arising from a single course of conduct should be concurrent rather than
  • State of Louisiana v. Tashonty C Toney La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
  • State of Louisiana v. Cassetti Dewayne Brown, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
    which found: Because the function of the consecutive sentence should be similar to the sentence imposed on habitual or dangerous offenders, sentences for crimes arising from a single course of conduct should be concurrent rather than
  • State of Louisiana v. Thomas Calvin Henson, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
    4th Cir.1987); the potential for the defendant’s rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Kenny Roy Young La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    4th Cir.1987); the potential for the defendant’s rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. Young 270 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    4th Cir.1987) ; the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation, ; (La.App.
  • State v. Wing 246 So. 3d 711 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
    Since Wing did not testify at his trial, any evidence pertaining to prior criminal convictions for impeachment purposes is not before us. See State v. Green , supra ; State v. Sherer , (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Walter Urena La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    4th Cir.1987); the potential for the defendant’s rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. Urena 215 So. 3d 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    4th Cir.1987); the potential for the defendant’s rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. Simpson 186 So. 3d 195 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    1st Cir.1983), writ denied, whether the defendant constitutes an unusual risk of danger to the public, the potential for the defendant’s rehabilitation, (La; App. 2d Cir.1987); and whether the defendant has received a benefit from a plea bargain.
  • State v. Robinson 163 So. 3d 829 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    1st Cir.1983), writ denied, ); whether the defendant constitutes an unusual risk of danger to the public (); the potential for defendant’s rehabilitation ( (La.App.
  • State v. Craft 162 So. 3d 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    1st Cir.1983), writ denied, whether the defendant constitutes an unusual risk of danger to the public, and the potential for defendant’s rehabilitation
  • State v. Herrington 152 So. 3d 202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    1st Cir.1983), wr it denied, whether the defendant constitutes an unusual risk of danger to the public, and the potential for defendant’s rehabilitation
  • State v. Slattery 116 So. 3d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Thus, our review shifts from whether the trial judge showed that the offender posed an unusual risk to public safety as required by State v. Sherer, supra, [ ] to the simplier [sic] standard of whether the record sufficiently justifies the sentencing choice.
  • State v. Tillman 104 So. 3d 480 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    1983); whether the defendant constitutes an unusual risk of danger to the public, and the potential for defendant’s rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. Moton 73 So. 3d 503 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    1st Cir.1983), wr it denied, whether the defendant constitutes an unusual risk of danger to the public, the potential for defendant’s rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. Bobo 77 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    4 Cir.1987); and the potential for defendant's rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. Nelson 25 So. 3d 905 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    1st Cir.1983), writ denied, whether the defendant constitutes an unusual risk of danger to the public, the potential for defendant’s rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. Boudreaux 21 So. 3d 1022 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    1983); whether the defendant constitutes an unusual risk of danger to the public, the potential for the defendant’s rehabilitation, (LaApp.
  • State v. Boudreaux 21 So. 3d 1022 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    1983); whether the defendant constitutes an unusual risk of danger to the public, the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Gene Mitchell Olivier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    4th Cir.1987); the potential for the defendant’s rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. AUGUILLARD 997 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    4th Cir.1987); the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Russell J. Auguillard, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    4th Cir.1987); the potential for the defendant’s rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. TURKS 997 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    1983); whether the defendant constitutes an unusual risk of danger to the public, the potential for defendant's rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS HECTOR LEYVA-MARTINEZ AKA HECTOR L. MARTINEZ AKA HECTOR LEYVA AKA HECTOR LAZARO LEYVA MARTINEZ La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    4th Cir.1987); the potential for the defendant’s rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. Leyva-Martinez 981 So. 2d 276 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    App. 4th Cir.1987); the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Robin Leblanc La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • State v. Harris 966 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    1983); whether the defendant constitutes an unusual risk of danger to the public, the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. Johnson 962 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    1983); whether the defendant constitutes an unusual risk of danger to the public, the potential for defendant's rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. McDUFFEY 960 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    App. 4th Cir.1987); the potential for defendant's *1182 rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Demarco D. Hawkins La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    4th Cir.1987); the potential for the defendant’s rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. Hawkins 956 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    App. 4th Cir.1987); the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. Scott 952 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    He argues that when the trial court fails to state the factors considered and the reasons for consecutive terms, the Louisiana Supreme Court generally vacates sentences and remands for resentencing, (per curiam) cert.
  • State v. Boudreaux 945 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    1983); whether the defendant constitutes an unusual risk of danger to the public, the potential for defendant's rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Karl Thibodeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    4th Cir.1987); the potential for the defendant’s rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. Thibodeaux 924 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    App. 4th Cir.1987); the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. Caston 914 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    4 Cir.1987); and the potential for defendant's rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. Gatti 914 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    4th Cir.1987); and • the potential for defendant's rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. Dagenhart 908 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    1st Cir.1983), writ denied, whether the defendant constitutes an unusual risk of danger to the public, and the potential for defendant's rehabilitation
  • State v. Hopkins 908 So. 2d 1265 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    4th Cir. 1987); and the potential for defendant's rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. Asad 870 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    *462 App. 4th Cir.1987); the potential for defendant’s rehabilitation, (LaApp.
  • State of Louisiana v. Dillon James Merritt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    4th Cir.1987); the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. Merritt 875 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    4th Cir.1987); the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. Hampton 865 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    4 Cir. 1987); and the potential for defendant's rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. Jarrett 862 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    4th Cir.1987); the potential for defendant's rehabilitation, (La.App.
  • State v. Kennedy 859 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • State v. Howard 842 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    4th Cir.1987)]; the potential for defendant’s rehabilitation [ (La.App.
  • State v. Gay 830 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    4th Cir.1987); and the potential for defendant's rehabilitation, (La.App.