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, 480 So. 2d 263.

77 citing documents.

  • State Of Louisiana v. Kyran Javon Vaughn La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
  • State Of Louisiana v. Andrew Jerome Francis La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
    Unlike the defendant in Patterson, who sought to apply the 18 In Boyd, ( La.
  • State v. Bourg 260 So. 3d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    State v. Jackson , overruled on other grounds by State v. Allen , and overruled on other grounds by State v. Sanders
  • State of Louisiana v. David Bourg La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
  • State v. Becnel 250 So. 3d 1207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    1982), overruled on other grounds by State v. Jackson , , 268.
  • State v. Scott 174 So. 3d 728 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    P. art. 893.3 ‘should the defendant be convicted,’ was broad enough to encompass not only the charged offense of manslaughter but also its responsive verdicts.” 6 and State v. Sneed, 2012-0809 (La.App.
  • State v. Dominguez 148 So. 3d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    -32 *662 (La.1982), (La.App.
  • State v. Sneed 119 So. 3d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    was only entitled to limited retroactivity because the need for notice was based on due process.
  • State v. Pham 119 So. 3d 202 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
    32 -32 (La.1982), ; (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Ernest D'Wayne Derryberry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    -232 (La.1982), (La.App.
  • State v. Harris 105 So. 3d 914 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
    -32 (La.1982), overruled\ ; (La.App.
  • State v. Aaron 66 So. 3d 18 La. 2011
    (“Notice permits, among other things, proper preparation to defend and specific knowledge about the penalty to which the defendant is exposed in the event he chooses to plead guilty.”).
  • State v. Hyman 62 So. 3d 146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    -232 (La.1982), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Willis 56 So. 3d 362 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Oliphant 980 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    State v. Robinson, 06-464 (La.App.
  • State v. Robinson 947 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
  • State v. Curtis 880 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • State of Louisiana v. Matthew Curtis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • State of Louisiana v. Cedric Daniels La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    the defendant appealed alleging he did not receive notice that either La.R.S.
  • State v. Daniels 873 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    the defendant appealed alleging he did not receive notice that either La.R.S.
  • State v. Frith 711 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    See Art. 893.1 et seq., as amended in 1988
  • State v. Dixon 668 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    As to the appellant’s contention that he should have been allowed to introduce testimony from Dr. Franklin regarding his amnesia, as well as receive a special jury instruction, -230 (La.1982), that no such testimony or instruction is proper: In State v. James, 241 La.
  • State v. Jackson 608 So. 2d 949 La. 1992
    ubsequent armed robbery is only admissible if adequate notice is provided by the prosecutor); (failure to notify the defendant that evidence of an unrelated armed robbery for which the defendant had been charged but not convicted would be introduced during the penalty phase of the first degree murder trial constituted reversible error); (enhanced penalties for firearm use in the commission of a crime could not be imposed without pretrial written notice to the defendant).
  • State v. Lilly 552 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    the Louisiana Supreme Court considered the applicability of art. 893.1.
  • State v. Boyd 538 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Subsequently, following appeal, this court, while affirming defendant’s conviction, and remanded this matter to the trial court for resentencing.
  • State v. Fairbanks 531 So. 2d 1145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Caillouet 528 So. 2d 1108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Sanders 523 So. 2d 209 La. 1988
    In denying defendant's application for writs, the court of appeal did not address defendant's Boykin claim; instead
  • State ex rel. Brisco v. Court of Appeal, First Circuit 521 So. 2d 396 La. 1988
  • State v. Boyd 525 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    Subsequently, following appeal, this court, while affirming defendant’s conviction, and remanded this matter to the trial court for resentencing.
  • State v. McKnight 518 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    -269 (La.1985), the Louisiana Supreme Court, after discussing the nature of the “crime” defined in R.S.
  • State v. Prince 520 So. 2d 778 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    -269 (La.1985); (La.App.
  • State v. Johnson 514 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Bryant 514 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    art. 893.1 was not activated by the written notice requirement of *719
  • State v. Ayrow 515 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    However, as the defendant correctly notes in his brief, overruled in part on other grounds, specifically held that La.R.S.
  • State v. Huddleston 517 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    that these statutes were unconstitutionally applied in sentencing her.
  • State v. Puerto 513 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    1 , the court held that due process requires that the defendant be informed of the State’s intent to seek an additional sentence under R.S.
  • State v. Allo 510 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
  • State v. Vanvorst 505 So. 2d 123 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • State v. Brown 504 So. 2d 1086 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Boyd 503 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    Appellant argues that, he could not be sentenced under the provisions of La.R.S.
  • State v. Rogers 503 So. 2d 1077 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Parker 503 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • State v. Montgomery 499 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    the court held that for a person to be sentenced under the provisions of La.R.S.
  • State v. Slayton 499 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Mason 499 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    2d Cir.1986), discussing this same issue in the following terms: (La.
  • State v. Collatt 497 So. 2d 1001 La. 1986
  • State v. Allen 496 So. 2d 301 La. 1986
  • State v. Arabie 496 So. 2d 554 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Wilson 495 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    14:95.2 illegal as the defendant was not charged by the bill of information with having used a