Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Alleman, 439 So. 2d 418.

28 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. Scott Daniel McCoy La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
State in the Interest of K. Z. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State ex rel. K.Z. 186 So. 3d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Epperley 151 So. 3d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
in which the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that “[t]he sentencing judge is expressly authorized to require the condition of ‘restitution to the aggrieved party for damage or loss caused by his offense.’ ” (quoting La.C.Cr.P.
State in the Interest of D. B. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State ex rel. D.B. 137 So. 3d 1282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Chappell 83 So. 3d 216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State ex rel. K.J. 71 So. 3d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State Ex Rel. Kj 71 So. 3d 557 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
State v. Galatas 30 So. 3d 284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. PORTIE 22 So. 3d 213 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
(1983), the defendant pleaded guilty to making three obscene telephone calls, and in the plea bargain the State dismissed two additional counts of the same offense.
State v. Froiland 910 So. 2d 956 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
the supreme court held that restitution could not be ordered to victims of obscene phone calls of which the defendant had not been convicted, as a condition of probation for the defendant after conviction on other charges of obscene phone calls.
State v. Blanchard 861 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Boudreaux 751 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Boudreaux 741 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
State v. Sanderson 715 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
State v. J.B. 643 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Addressing this provision, -20 (La.1983), stated: “But the sentencing judge is authorized unqualifiedly by statute to require ‘reparation or restitution to the aggrieved party for damage or loss caused by his offense,’ and this is an explicit component of his general authority to impose any specific condition reasonably related to defendant
State v. Peters 611 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
State v. Schmidt 558 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
State v. Byars 550 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Francois 548 So. 2d 1284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
the defendant was required as a condition of probation to make restitution to victims of offenses “of which he was accused but not convicted.” 439 So.2d at 419 .
State v. Bryan 535 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Rogers 517 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Olsen 496 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Pashandi 490 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Elkins 489 So. 2d 232 La. 1986
Although this court has refused to limit restitution to monetary loss sustained by victims of crime, nonetheless we have clearly stated that restitution can only be ordered for "damage or loss caused by [the] offense," (emphasis in original) and that "restitution to the victim of a crime of which the defendant was not convicted or did not plead guilty may not be imposed," citing State v. Labure, 427 S
State v. Norman 484 So. 2d 952 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Metlin 467 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR Metlin contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay restitution, in the amount of $8,037.50, to those victims of burglaries committed by Alan J. Silvers when Metlin did not plead guilty to the burglaries and thefts from the parties to whom he was ordered to make restitution