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 v. Bienemy 483 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    State v. Sennette, supra .
  • State v. Wright 483 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    reasons that a sentence whose illegality is favorable to the defendant may not be corrected on the defendant's appeal because of the “chilling effect” upon exercise of the right of appeal.
  • State v. Washington 482 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Washington 482 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Jackson 480 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Delcambre 480 So. 2d 294 La. 1985
    State v. (Eli) Jackson, (La.
  • State v. O'NEAL 478 So. 2d 1311 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    In rejecting the state's contention, this court stated: in which the Supreme Court of Louisiana stated that "...
  • State v. Caston 477 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
  • State v. Leason 477 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Ruffin 475 So. 2d 1375 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    In response we said: " in which the Supreme Court of Louisiana stated that `...it is inappropriate for an appellate court to correct the sentence when the defendant alone seeks appellate review.'
  • State v. LeClear 474 So. 2d 554 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    However, held that 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. Davis 474 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    The Supreme Court, held that an appellate court could not take cognizance on appeal of sentencing errors favorable to the defendant where such errors were not raised by either the defendant or the State but were merely discovered on a viewing of the appeal record.
  • State v. Daniels 473 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    our Supreme Court held that an appellate court should not correct an unlawfully lenient sentence where the defendant alone seeks review.
  • State v. Sepcich 473 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
  • State v. Sykes 471 So. 2d 886 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    the supreme court held that appellate courts cannot correct illegally lenient sentences in the absence of an appeal by the state.
  • State v. Tatum 471 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    2d Cir.1985), decided this date, wherein this issue, (La.
  • State v. Samuels 471 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    held that a court of appeal may not correct an illegal sentence when the defendant alone seeks appellate review.
  • State v. Bell 471 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
  • State v. Knox 472 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
  • 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. Brown 470 So. 2d 259 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
  • State v. Fraser 471 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Pupo 466 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    However, the Supreme Court held that when a defendant appeals, errors favorable to that defendant discovered in an errors patent search will not be corrected.
  • State v. Poche 464 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
  • State v. Liddell 463 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    I applies despite the recent amendment to Article 882 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
  • State v. Davis 463 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
    our Supreme Court held that an appellate court should not correct an unlawfully lenient sentence where the defendant alone seeks review.
  • State v. Browder 471 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    On the other hand, the Louisiana Supreme Court, held that an appellate court could not take cognizance on appeal of sentencing errors that were unfavorable to the defendant where such errors were not raised by either the defendant or the State but were merely discovered on a viewing of the appeal record.
  • State v. Counterman 461 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    [2] The complete remarks of Delegate Avant are found in 6 Records of the Louisiana Constitutional Convention of 1973: Convention, Transcripts p. 1133 for September 6, 1973, and are attached hereto as Appendix A. [3] It should be noted that the Simmons and Marcell interpretation of Article I, § 19
  • State v. Spell 461 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Although the trial court did not comply with this requirement, (La.
  • State v. Sennette 462 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    any error favorable to the defendant is not an error patent, discoverable by an inspection of the pleadings.
  • State v. Furlow 460 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    the Louisiana *78 Supreme Court found that such sentencing errors are not to be noted as patent errors by the reviewing court.
  • State v. Robertson 459 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    in which the Supreme Court of Louisiana stated that "...
  • State v. Marien 457 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    However, due to the Supreme Court’s this Court is precluded from taking notice of the illegality of this sentence as an error patent on the face of the record.
  • State v. Williams 458 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    1st Cir.1983), amended on other grounds
  • State v. Hills 457 So. 2d 1183 La. 1984
  • State v. Allen 457 So. 2d 1183 La. 1984
  • State v. Hills 457 So. 2d 1183 La. 1984
  • State v. Jones 456 So. 2d 162 La. 1984
  • 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. Wilson 457 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    1 the Louisiana Supreme Court recently held that an appellate court “should disregard sentencing errors favorable to the defendant unless the prosecution has raised the issue in trial court and has sought appellate review.” In the instant case, defendant alone has appealed solely on the issue of the denial of
  • State v. Williams 454 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Lewis 455 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Rankin 454 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    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. Singleton 454 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Therefore, we will ignore this sentencing error because it is favorable to the defendants.
  • State v. Norman 452 So. 2d 1178 La. 1984
  • State v. Thomas 452 So. 2d 1177 La. 1984
  • State v. Johnson 452 So. 2d 1177 La. 1984
  • State v. Phillips 452 So. 2d 1178 La. 1984
  • State v. Norman 452 So. 2d 1178 La. 1984
  • State v. Thomas 452 So. 2d 1177 La. 1984