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. Fraser, 484 So. 2d 122.

341 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Edward R. Budd La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
    the case must be remanded for the trial court to perform that function.” 1999-178, p. 3, 745 So.2d at 696 ( n.5 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Charles C. Keene La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
  • State v. Keene 230 So. 3d 1012 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • 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
    The Williams opinion called into question the line of cases represented by State v. Jackson and concluded that a defendant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to an illegal sentence.
  • State v. Kelly 153 So. 3d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    1984), and concluded that a defendant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to an illegal sentence.
  • State v. Griffin 145 So. 3d 545 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    State v. Anderson, 33,630 (La.App.
  • State v. Burton 116 So. 3d 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    1¿-125 (La.1986), in which the Supreme Court addressed article 882 and the issue of post-appellate sentence enhancement in opining: Article 882 A, as amended, merely authorizes an appellate court to correct an illegal sentence on review.
  • 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 of Louisiana v. Michael D. Patterson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    art. 882(A), an illegal sentence may be corrected at any time by the court that imposed the sentence or by an appellate court on review, 3 ―when such correction does not involve the exercise of sentencing discretion,‖
  • State v. Patterson 83 So. 3d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    art. 882(A), an illegal sentence may be corrected at any time by the court that imposed the sentence or by an appellate court on review, |4“when such correction does not involve the exercise of sentencing discretion,”
  • State of Louisiana v. Scotty L. Webre La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    art. 882(A), an illegal sentence may be corrected at any time by the court that imposed the sentence or by an appellate court on review, “when such correction does not involve the exercise of sentencing discretion,”
  • State v. Webre 21 So. 3d 1154 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    art. 882(A), an illegal sentence may be corrected at any time by the court that imposed the sentence or by an appellate court on review, “when such correction does not involve the exercise of sentencing discretion,”
  • State of Louisiana v. Kevin Paul Jacobs La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • State v. Jacobs 2 So. 3d 1289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State of Louisiana v. D.F. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • State v. D.F. 995 So. 2d 1253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • State v. DF 995 So. 2d 1253 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • State v. Hall 986 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    State v. Payn, 95-2166 (La.1/26/96), ; State v. Anderson, 33,630 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. M.L.M. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    3 Cir. 3/5/03), ( n.5 (La.
  • State v. M.L.M. 974 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    3 Cir. 3/5/03), ( , 124 n. 5 (La.1986)) (alteration in original).
  • State v. MLM 974 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    3 Cir. 3/5/03), ( , 124 n. 5 (La.1986)) (alteration in original).
  • State of Louisiana v. Warren Fuselier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • State v. Fuselier 885 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • State v. Green 873 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
  • State v. Figueroa 869 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • State of Louisiana v. Jose Figueroa La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • State v. Heim 870 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    which held that a sentencing error favorable to the defendant that is not raised by the state on appeal may not be corrected.
  • State v. Moore 865 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
  • State v. Williams 859 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    Unlike § 301.1, which is selfactivating, that article 882 requires the state to apply for appellate review of an illegally lenient sentence.
  • State v. Phillips 853 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    which held that a sentencing error favorable to the defendant that is not raised by the state on appeal may not be corrected.
  • State v. Comena 843 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    1 Cir. 4/11/02), -01 (Guidry, J., dissenting); as Guidry, joined by Judge Pettigrew, aptly stated: Although State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , it does not overrule Fraser; and I do not interpret Williams as applicable to sentencing errors of a type different than those subject to automatic correction under La.
  • State v. Hall 843 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    Heretofore, this Court has followed the dictates of State v. Fraser, *494 which held that a sentencing error favorable to the defendant that is not raised by the State on appeal may not be corrected.
  • State v. Davis 834 So. 2d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    This Court stated that: “Williams retroactively overrules State v. Jackson 4 and its progeny, ” 2001-1062, p. 8, 812 So.2d at 145 .
  • State v. Phillips 834 So. 2d 972 La. 2002
    Unlike § 301.1, which is self-activating, that article 882 requires the state to apply for appellate review of an illegally lenient sentence.
  • State v. Burt 828 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Formerly, which held that a sentencing error favorable to the defendant that is not raised by the State on appeal may not be corrected.
  • State v. Major 829 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    1 Cir. 4/11/02), -01 (Guidry, J., dissenting); as Judge Guidry, joined by Judge Pettigrew, aptly stated: |7Although State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , it does not overrule Fraser and I do not interpret Williams as applicable to sentencing errors of a type different than those subject to automatic correction under La.
  • State v. Woods 828 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    Heretofore, which held that a sentencing error favorable to the defendant that is not raised by the State on appeal may not be corrected.
  • State v. Legett 819 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • State v. Paoli 818 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • State v. Barnes 816 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    Formerly, which held that a sentencing error favorable to the defendant that is not raised by the State on appeal may not be corrected.
  • 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. Holmes 811 So. 2d 960 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    State v. Belino, 96-0789, p. 2 n. 3 (La.App.
  • State v. Holmes 811 So. 2d 955 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    State v. Belino, 96-0789, p. 2 n. 3 (La.App.
  • 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. Perron 806 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
  • State v. Griffin 803 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    State v. Moore, 26,329 (La.App.2d Cir.8/17/94), .