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. Jackson, 452 So. 2d 682.

100 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Ashaki Okung Kelly 195 So. 3d 449 La. 2016
  • 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. Griffin 145 So. 3d 545 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    State v. Anderson, 33,630 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Dietrich Jamal Thibodeaux AKA Dietrich Thibodeaux AKA Dietrich J. Thibodeaux Etc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    and concluded that a defendant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to an illegal sentence.
  • State v. Thibodeaux 100 So. 3d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    and concluded that a defendant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to an illegal sentence.
  • State v. Moore 865 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
  • State v. Davis 834 So. 2d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    STAT. ANN. § 15:301.1 was enacted to change the law in State v. Jackson [ ] and its progeny.
  • State v. Phillips 834 So. 2d 972 La. 2002
  • State v. Legett 819 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    at p. 1, 800 So.2d at 803 (Calogero, C.J. dissenting), (La.
  • State v. Jefferson 815 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    and concluded that a defendant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to an illegal sentence.
  • State v. Perkins 811 So. 2d 997 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
  • State v. Daniel 811 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • State v. Course 809 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • State v. Albercht 809 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
  • State v. Williams 800 So. 2d 790 La. 2001
  • State v. Williams 792 So. 2d 743 La. 2001
  • State v. Williams 792 So. 2d 743 La. 2001
  • State v. Price 780 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    App. 3 Cir. 10/4/95), , writ denied, 95-2686 (La.2/6/96), ( ).
  • State v. Anderson 764 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Carthan 765 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    3 Cir. 10/4/95) ; , writ denied, 95-2686 (La.2/9/96); ().
  • State v. Boles 750 So. 2d 1059 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    Section 2 of the act further provides, "The provisions of Section 1 of this Act shall legislatively overrule the cases of State v. Jackson, 83-2360 (La.S.Ct.6/25/84), , Pierre v. Maggio, 83-0860 (La.S.Ct.1/27/84), , and any other case which is contrary to the provisions of this Act."
  • State v. Dean 748 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    3 Cir. 10/4/95) ; , writ denied, 95-2686 (La.2/6/96)
  • State v. Price 721 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    See, cited in State v. Amos, 97-1283 (La.App.
  • State v. McDowell 720 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    3 Cir. 10/4/95) ; , 201 writ denied, 95-2686 (La.2/9/96)
  • State v. King 720 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Amos 714 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    8 Cir. 10/4/95); , writ denied, 95-2686 (La.2/6/96); , and resolved as follows: [W]hen a defendant alone appeals and the record contains a patent error favorable to the defendant, the appellate court should ignore the error, unless the prosecution, having properly raised the issue in the trial court, has sought the appellate review.
  • State v. Gaines 707 So. 2d 1354 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
  • State v. Recard 704 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Clark 687 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Hines 663 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    3 Cir.1992), this court, stated: [W]hen a defendant alone appeals and the record contains a patent error favorable to the defendant, the appellate court should ignore the error, unless the prosecution, having properly raised the issue in the trial court, has sought the appellate review.
  • State v. Brumfield 639 So. 2d 1196 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Sanmiguel 626 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • State v. Stein 611 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    as follows: However when a defendant alone appeals and the record contains a patent error favorable to the defendant, the appellate court should ignore the error, unless the prosecution, having properly raised the issue in the trial court, has sought appellate review.
  • State Ex Rel. Mitchell v. State 580 So. 2d 906 La. 1991
    [4] which, while prohibiting appellate courts from reaching out to correct an illegally lenient sentence when the defendant alone appealed, noted that it was more appropriate for the sentencing judge to correct such errors to conform with his intention at the time of sentencing.
  • State v. Tabor 578 So. 2d 528 La. 1991
  • Explained State v. Arrington 556 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • State v. Collins 546 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Failure to deny probation, parole, or suspension of sentence is favorable to Collins, and, this Court cannot correct the error since the error is favorable to Collins and the prosecutor has not complained that the sentence is illegally lenient.
  • State v. Jarmon 543 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Although defendant’s $1,000 fine is too lenient, it appears this court cannot correct the error because it is favorable to defendant, and the prosecutor has not complained that the sentence is illegally lenient.
  • State v. Loya 527 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Washington 522 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    Article 882 did not affect these basic procedural concepts, nor did it modify our holding in the Jackson case [ ]."
  • State v. Rogers 519 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Scott 511 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Jackson v. Phelps 506 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Landry 502 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    as follows: "However, when a defendant alone appeals and the record contains a patent error favorable to the defendant, the appellate court should ignore the error, unless the prosecution, having properly raised the issue in the trial court, has sought appellate review."
  • State v. Lambert 499 So. 2d 1196 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Brooks 496 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    -684 (La.1984) the Louisiana Supreme Court held: When a defendant alone appeals and the record contains a patent error unfavorable to the defendant, an appellate court should recognize and correct the error.
  • State v. Outlaw 485 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • 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. Martin 483 So. 2d 1223 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986