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. Coleman, 465 So. 2d 709.

29 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Jeremy Eric Carter La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
  • State of Louisiana v. Steven Mark Marc" Anderson " La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Anderson 48 So. 3d 1202 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Odom 993 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • State of Louisiana v. Parnell Poche La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Poche 924 So. 2d 1225 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Walker 775 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • State v. Gedric 741 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • BD. OF COM'RS OF ORLEANS LEVEE DISTRICT v. Connick 654 So. 2d 1073 La. 1995
    citing Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 , 82 S.Ct.
  • State v. Smith 597 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • State v. Freeman 597 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • State v. Allen 496 So. 2d 301 La. 1986
    This court first interpreted Article 893.1
  • State v. Frazier 492 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    The State contends it timely moved for sentencing enhancement under this statute by oral motion before sentencing and by written mo *160 tion shortly after sentencing
  • State v. Veal 490 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    the Supreme Court held that the language of the statutes “is not intended to authorize a court to correct a district attorney in the exercise of his constitutional and statutory discretion to proceed under a particular provision when an offender’s conduct is criminal according to several statutes or to selec
  • State v. Moore 488 So. 2d 987 La. 1986
    held that the mandatory language of LSA-C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Shows 488 So. 2d 992 La. 1986
    held that the mandatory language of LSA-C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Quraan 487 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Jackson 480 So. 2d 263 La. 1985
    Before discussing defendant's assertion that notice is required before imposition of sentence under the respective firearm enhancement statutes, and as a prelude to the resolution of legal issues addressed hereinafter in this opinion, in connection with whether § 14:95.2 and art. 893.1 are mandatory in application.
  • State v. Quinn 479 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Allen 478 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Byrd 476 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Although this article is a mandatory sentencing provision, and thereby enjoys the possibility of parole.
  • State v. Hanner 476 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Bell 471 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    In evaluating the argument that the delay operated to divest the trial court of its sentencing power
  • State v. Breaux 471 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    _” Recently, the court was called upon to decide whether a five year hard labor sentence for the crime of attempted manslaughter in which a firearm had been used during the commission of the crime was illegal since the sentencing court had failed to comply with La.R.S.
  • State v. Collins 470 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Brisco 470 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    the Louisiana Supreme Court held the firearm enhancement statutes were not mandatory unless the district attorney either charged the use of a firearm or timely moved for enhancement.
  • State v. Collins 470 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Wade 470 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Fraser 471 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    However, action to correct what is undoubtedly an illegal sentence is, at any level, a tenuous and uncertain judicial endeavor.