Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Humphrey, 445 So. 2d 1155.

177 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Frederick Curtis Mangrum La. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Michael R. Suydam, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
5/31/96), (per curium) (), cert.
State of Louisiana v. Jeremy Dillion La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Douglas Paul James La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. George McKinney, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Austin William Bost La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Joseph Matthew Pardue A/K/A Joseph Matthews Pardue La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
5/31/96), ( (La.1984)), cert.
State of Louisiana v. Robert Eugene Vascocu La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
5/31/96), (per curium) (), cert.
State of Louisiana v. Hugh Gilliam La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
Thus, on appellate review of a sentence, the only relevant question is ‘ “whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.” ’ Cook, 1995-2784 at p. 3, 674 So.2d at 959 ().
State Of Louisiana v. Noe A. Aguliar-benitez Aka Noe Aguilar-benitez La. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Curtis Roy Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
On appellate review of sentence, the relevant question is “ “whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.’ ” State v. Cook, 95-2784, p. 3 (La.5/3 1/96), (), cert.
State of Louisiana v. Lance S. Barton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Isame Henry Faciane A/K/A Isame Faciance La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Kyron A. Theophile La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
Thus, on appellate review of a sentence, the only relevant question is ‘“whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.”’ Cook, 1995-2784 at p. 3, 674 So.2d at 959 ().
State of Louisiana v. Edwin Paul Frinks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State v. Frinks 274 So. 3d 635 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
615 , 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996) "(quoting State v. Humphrey , , 1165 (La.
State v. Washington 274 So. 3d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
615 , 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996) ; and State v. Humphrey , ).
State of Louisiana v. Gerrell Washington La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Gerrell Washington La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State v. Washington 274 So. 3d 193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
615 , 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996) ; and State v. Humphrey , ).
State of Louisiana v. Kenny Roy Young La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Although Defendant argues a lesser sentence would be better for everyone, the relevant question is “whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.” Cook, 674 So.2d at 959
State v. Young 270 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Cook , 674 So.2d at 959 , , 1165 (La.1984).
State v. Barnett 267 So. 3d 209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
" State v. Humphrey , , 1158 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Jeffery Wayne Ross La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State v. Ross 269 So. 3d 1052 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
615 , 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996) ; and State v. Humphrey , ).
State of Louisiana v. Nelson Zeno AKA Nelson Joseph Zeno La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Although Defendant sought a four-year sentence in his motion to reconsider, the relevant question is “whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.”
State of Louisiana v. Clevance Cormier, Jr La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Patrick Seth Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
.On appellate review of sentence, the relevant question is “ ‘whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.’ ” State v. Cook, 95- 2784, p. 3 (La.5/31/96), (), cert.
State v. Jones 229 So. 3d 1002 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Danial Lewayne Lafleur -Aka- Daniel Lafleur -Aka- Daniel Lee Lafleur -Aka- Danial Lafleur La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
97-1027 (La.10/13/97), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: On appellate review of sentence, the only relevant question is “ „whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.‟ ” State v. Cook, 95- 2784, p. 3 (La.5/31/96), (), cert.
State v. Lafleur 209 So. 3d 927 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Francisco Jesus Vasquez-Ramirez La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Vasquez-Ramirez 210 So. 3d 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
615 , 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996); ).
State of Louisiana v. Steven Blunt AKA Steven L. Blunt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Blunt 201 So. 3d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
615 , 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996); ).
State of Louisiana v. Rosalyn Faith Breaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
The relevant question is “‘whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more 14 appropriate.’” State v. Cook, 674 So.2d at 959 ().
State of Louisiana v. Heller Marie Dupuis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State of Louisiana v. Toby James Fruge 179 So. 3d 579 La. 2015
Therefore, the only relevant question on review is “whether the [district] court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.” Cook, 95-2784 at 3, 674 So.2d at 959, (La.
State of Louisiana v. Terrance Mouton AKA Terrence Mouton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State of Louisiana v. Glenn Von Ross La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Mouton 175 So. 3d 1122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
615 , 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996); ).
State of Louisiana v. Jared Paul Pontiff La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Pontiff 166 So. 3d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
the Louisiana constitution does not provide an appellate court with a vehicle for substituting its judgment for that of a trial judge as to what punishment is more appropriate in a given case[.]” State v. Savoy, 11-1174, p. 5 (La.7/2/12), (citing State v. Walker, 00-3200 (La.10/12/01), ; State v. Cook, 95-2784 (La.5/31/96), ; ).
State of Louisiana v. Waylon P. Sauls, II La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Gordon 146 So. 3d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Cox, 2010-2072, p. 1 (La.11/19/10)
State v. Hollins 123 So. 3d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. Soraparu, 97-1027 (La.10/13/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: On appellate review of sentence, the only relevant question is “ ‘whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.’” State v. Cook, 95-2784, p. 3 (La.5/31/96), (), ce rt.
State v. King 122 So. 3d 1042 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Colvin, 11-1040 (La.03/13/12), ; .
State v. Jones 119 So. 3d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. Soraparu, 97-1027, p. 1 (La.10/13/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that the relevant question in an appellate review of sentence is “‘whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.’ ” State v. Cook, 95-2784, p. 3 (La.5/31/96), (), cert.
State v. Slattery 116 So. 3d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The pertinent question on appellate review is “whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.” see also State v. Taves, 03-0518, p. 4 (La.12/3/03), (per curiam) (collecting cases).
State v. Parker 112 So. 3d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In determining whether the sentence imposed by a trial court was unconstitutionally excessive, the Louisiana Supreme Court has previously held: The pertinent question on appellate review is “whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.” see also State v. Taves, 03-0518, p. 4 (La.12/3/03), (per curiam)(collecting cases).