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. Dorthey, 623 So. 2d 1276.

2014 citing documents.

  • State v. Key 58 So. 3d 578 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03), ; (La.
  • State v. Henderson 58 So. 3d 552 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
  • State v. Phillips 61 So. 3d 130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State v. Turner 57 So. 3d 1209 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
  • State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    State v. Pierre, 02-277 (La.App.
  • State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Pierre, 02-277 (La.App.
  • State v. White 58 So. 3d 493 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
  • State v. Gandy 57 So. 3d 1163 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
  • State v. Dukes 57 So. 3d 489 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
  • State v. Welch 57 So. 3d 442 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
  • State v. Cummings 57 So. 3d 499 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that if a trial judge determines that the punishment mandated by the Habitual Offender Law makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment, or that the sentence amounts |22⅛0 nothing more than the purposeful imposition of pain and suffering and is gr
  • State v. Willis 56 So. 3d 362 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Winslow 55 So. 3d 910 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Edwards 56 So. 3d 345 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.01/14/03)
  • State of Louisiana v. Kenneth Jay Clark La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    “ ‘[T]he excessiveness of a sentence becomes a question of law reviewable under the appellate jurisdiction of this court.’ ” ().
  • State of Louisiana v. Fred Ballard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    victim of the legislature's failure to assign sentences that are meaningfully tailored to the culpability of the offender, the gravity of the offense, and the circumstances.” State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 8 (La.3/4/98), (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); -81 (La.1993) (holding that a trial court must reduce a defendant’s sentence to one not constitutionally excessive if the trial court finds that the sentence mandated by the Habitual Offender Law “makes no measurable contribution t
  • State v. Clark 52 So. 3d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    “ ‘[T]he exces-siveness of a sentence becomes a question of law reviewable under the appellate jurisdiction of this court.’ ” ().
  • State v. Mueller 53 So. 3d 677 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • State v. Morrison 55 So. 3d 856 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Green 52 So. 3d 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    15:529.1(A)(1)(a)(iii) 1 :
  • State v. Burton 51 So. 3d 841 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Even a sentence within the statutory limit may violate a defendant’s constitutional right against excessive punishment, Id.; and, accordingly, imposition of a sentence, even those within the statutory limit, may be reviewed on appeal.
  • State v. Williams 54 So. 3d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • State v. Davis 57 So. 3d 1066 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.01/14/03)
  • State v. Dillard 55 So. 3d 56 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Kidd 55 So. 3d 90 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Horn 55 So. 3d 100 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
  • State v. Cotton 45 So. 3d 1030 La. 2010
    innocence or guilt....” |2(habitual offender bill of information “does not charge a new crime but merely advises the trial court of circumstances ....
  • State v. Moore 57 So. 3d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    — • — sentenced Bass to three years imprisonment with credit for time served.
  • State v. Declouet 52 So. 3d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    5 Cir. 2/23/04) , , writ denied, 04-0955 (La.10/1/04), (citing State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Cushinello, 01-109 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Steven Mark Marc" Anderson " La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    The supreme court has also noted “that the district attorney indeed has the discretionary power to bring habitual offender bills of information just as he has the initial unlimited power to prosecute ‘whom, when, and how’ he chooses.”
  • State of Louisiana v. Kevin T. Arndt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    “ ‘[T]he excessiveness of a sentence becomes a question of law reviewable under the appellate jurisdiction of this court.’ ” ().
  • State v. Anderson 48 So. 3d 1202 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    The supreme court has also noted “that the district attorney indeed has the discretionary power to bring habitual offender bills of information just as he has the initial unlimited power to prosecute ‘whom, when, and how’ he chooses.”
  • State v. Turner 50 So. 3d 836 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    He asserts that the trial court failed to consider his drug addiction as a and as such, his sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
  • State v. Ashley 48 So. 3d 332 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Marshall 47 So. 3d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    -81 (La.1993), the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that if a trial judge determines that the punishment mandated by the Habitual Offender Law makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment, or that the sentence amounts to nothing more than the purposeful imposition of pain and suffering and
  • State v. Foster 47 So. 3d 1078 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
  • State v. Lawrence 47 So. 3d 1003 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    At sentencing, Mr. Lawrence argued that this mandatory life sentence was excessive un *1014 der the facts of the case, and that a
  • State v. Garner 47 So. 3d 584 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Blow 46 So. 3d 735 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Haltom 46 So. 3d 708 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
  • State v. Jones 46 So. 3d 756 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
  • State v. Morris 46 So. 3d 774 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
  • State v. Johnson 44 So. 3d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • State v. LeBlanc 41 So. 3d 1168 La. 2010
    nding commission of the crime, we cannot agree with | ^the court of appeal majority that the sentence imposed by the trial court, although the maximum penalty for the offense, “makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment and is nothing more than the purposeless imposition of pain and suffering and is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
  • State v. SIGERS 42 So. 3d 446 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.01/14/03)
  • State v. Young 42 So. 3d 1025 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Givens 42 So. 3d 451 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03), ; (La.
  • State v. Robinson 42 So. 3d 1036 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
  • State v. Sims 41 So. 3d 1277 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
  • State v. Givens 42 So. 3d 451 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)