Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Napoli, 437 So. 2d 868.

37 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Ashaki Okung Kelly La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Kelly 153 So. 3d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Burton 116 So. 3d 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
ues essentially that when a defendant “alone seeks review of a conviction and sentence, the court of appeal should review only those issues raised by the defendant and any patent errors favorable to defendant” because when a court of appeal reviews a sentencing error that is unfavorable to a defendant it provides “a chilling effect on defendant’s exercise of his right to appeal.” ().
State v. Phillips 834 So. 2d 972 La. 2002
State v. Williams 800 So. 2d 790 La. 2001
See also State v. Payn, 95-2166 (La.1/26/96), ( per curiam ) (stating that "[a]n appellate court may not correct a patent error which is favorable to the sole appellant in a criminal appeal."); ( per curiam ) (holding that when a defendant alone appeals, a court "should review only those issues raised by [him] and any patent errors favorable to [him].").
State v. Huls 676 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
1st Cir.), judgment set aside on other grounds, (La.
State v. Lucas 598 So. 2d 338 La. 1992
Explained State v. Arrington 556 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Fraser 484 So. 2d 122 La. 1986
Art. 882 that an appellate court may not amend or set aside an illegally lenient sentence on its own motion, when the defendant alone has appealed and the prosecutor has not sought review of the sentence.
State v. Breaux 471 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Initially, our Supreme Court stated: “...
State v. Wade 470 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
14:95.2 [1] to the aggravated burglary sentence because such produces a "chilling effect" on his right to appeal
State v. Fraser 471 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Clark 466 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
1st Cir.1983), modified on other grounds, certiorari denied, 420 U.S. 976 , 95 S.Ct.
State v. Lewis 452 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Coleman 451 So. 2d 185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
the Louisiana Supreme Court prohibited the Court of Appeal from ordering the trial court to correct a patently illegal sentence and ordered reinstatement of that illegal sentence holding that an illegal sentence in favor of a defendant cannot be reviewed or corrected by the appellate court.
State v. Joseph 458 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
1 We note that we are not in conflict with the Supreme Court’s
State v. Williams 454 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Jackson 452 So. 2d 682 La. 1984
This court, on defendant's application, rendered the following per curiam decision, reported at : "GRANTED IN PART.
State v. Gayden 452 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Welcher 451 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
while the Lee panel followed Tehee, supra.
State v. Walters 450 So. 2d 1377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Jones 451 So. 2d 1162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a reviewing court should review only those issues raised by the defendant and any errors patent favorable to the defendant.
State v. McCoy 450 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
Fourth Circuit, 1984), and 3)
State v. Jasmin 449 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Because the defendant alone has appealed, however, we review only those patent errors favorable to him, to avoid “providing a chilling effect on defendant’s exercise of his right to appeal.” and State v. Jones, supra.
State v. Viera 449 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
(1983) which prohibits the imposition by an appellate court of a lawful sentence on the theory that this constitutes "a chilling effect on defendant's exercise of his right to appeal."
State v. Lodge 447 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Accordingly, the sentence must be amended to withdraw these benefits for two years of [defendant’s] sentence.” This ruling has been placed in question by a where it was held that “when a defendant alone seeks review of a conviction and sentence the Court of Appeal should review only those errors raised by the defendant and any patent errors favorable to the defendant”.
State v. James 447 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
1st Cir.1983), writ granted on other grounds
State v. Wright 446 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
appears to be in conflict with Telsee, supra, we adopt the rationale utilized by our brethern of the First Circuit, State v. Johnson, 439 So.
State v. Ogletree 446 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Tate 444 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
Although the imposition of a sentence which is illegal because it is more lenient than the legislature prescribed for the crime would seem to require a remand for re-sentencing, (1983), we have no alternative but to affirm the sentence.
State v. Barber 445 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Lee 445 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Gatlin 445 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
appears to be in conflict with Telsee, supra, we adopt the rationale utilized by our brethern of the First Circuit, State v. Thomas, 439 So.2d *50 629 (La.App., 1st Cir., 1983); State v. Johnson, 439
State v. Jones 445 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Jackson 439 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Napoli thereafter took a writ to the Louisiana Supreme Court which on September 2, 1983, in took the following per curiam action: GRANTED IN PART.
State v. Dixon 442 So. 2d 840 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
State v. Thomas 439 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
See, , Supreme Court of Louisiana, No. 83-K-0667, On Application for Writs of Review, rendered September 2, 1983.