Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Davis, 449 So. 2d 452.

139 citing documents.

State v. Barbre 499 So. 2d 1324 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
State v. Lutes 496 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
State v. Cockerham 496 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
State v. Dew 495 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
the Supreme Court stated: “A punishment is considered constitutionally excessive if it makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment and is nothing more than the purposeless imposition of pain and suffering and is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime.
State v. Colter 491 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
at 453 and 454 (La.1984), provides as follows: “A punishment is considered constitutionally excessive if it makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishsment and is nothing more than the purposeless imposition of pain and suffering and is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime.
State v. James 490 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Moore 490 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Fernandez 489 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Isaac 487 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Strickland 486 So. 2d 1015 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Sonnier 487 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Wesley 485 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Brown 483 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
appeal after remand, (La.App.
State v. Claiborne 483 So. 2d 1301 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
2345 , 85 L.Ed.2d 862 (1985); (La.App.
State v. Dennison 482 So. 2d 1071 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Rovira 483 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Augustine 482 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
appeal after remand, (1984); (La.App.
State v. Fluker 482 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Lee 482 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Francis 482 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Brogdon, supra at 625
State v. Forde 482 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Chance 480 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Lee 478 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Smart 478 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Caston 477 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
State v. Brogdon, supra at 625
State v. Cottingin 476 So. 2d 1184 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Wright 476 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Sepulvado, supra.
State v. Argo 476 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Freeman 474 So. 2d 1035 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
the Supreme Court stated: "La.
State v. Thompson 473 So. 2d 937 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
“Without the trial court’s articulation of the factual basis of each ground which influenced its disposition, a sentence may appear to be arbitrary or excessive, unless there is evidence elsewhere of record which clearly illumines the sentencing choice.” resentencing affirmed, ”
State v. Cox 474 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Lawson 474 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
State v. Sepulvado 473 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Telsee, supra; ”
State v. Perry 472 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Adams 471 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Dixon 471 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
State v. Brogden, supra at 625
State v. Hawkins 470 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
“Without the trial court’s articulation of the factual basis of each ground which influenced its disposition, a sentence may appear to be arbitrary or excessive, unless there is evidence elsewhere of record which clearly illumines the sentencing choice.” resentencing affirmed, ”
State v. Fruge 470 So. 2d 431 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Toomer 461 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
the court for *389 the second time remanded the case of a seventeen year old armed robber for resentencing because the trial court did not adequately consider Art. 894.1's guidelines in imposing two consecutive fifty year sentences.