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. Sanchez 39 So. 3d 834 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • State v. Givens 41 So. 3d 589 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
  • State v. Reed 37 So. 3d 1116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.01/14/03)
  • State v. Knight 36 So. 3d 1163 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
  • State v. Lewis 36 So. 3d 1190 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.01/14/03)
  • State v. Vance 36 So. 3d 1152 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
  • State of Louisiana v. Marcus Quinn, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    In Mays I, the fifth circuit discussed the applicable law as follows: 7 the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that the legal principle of res judicata does not apply to multiple offender proceedings.
  • State v. Quinn 38 So. 3d 1102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    In Mays I, the fifth circuit discussed the applicable law as follows: the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that the legal principle of res judicata does not apply to multiple offender proceedings.
  • State v. Harrell 40 So. 3d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    -81 (La.1993) (holding 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 is grossly out of proportion to
  • State of Louisiana v. R. R. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    -81 (La.1993) (footnote omitted), the supreme court noted in the context of a habitual offender proceedings: If, in this case when defendant is ultimately sentenced, the trial judge were to find that the punishment mandated by R.S.
  • State of Louisiana v. Charles Johnson 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. RR 37 So. 3d 501 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    -81 (La.1993) (footnote omitted), the supreme court noted in the context of a habitual offender proceedings: "If, in this case when defendant is ultimately sentenced, the trial judge were to find that the punishment mandated by R.S.
  • State v. Eason 36 So. 3d 396 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
  • State v. Logan 34 So. 3d 528 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
  • State v. Johnson 34 So. 3d 1124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03), ; State v. Dorthey, 92-3120 (La.9/10/93), .
  • State v. Freeman 34 So. 3d 541 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Jackson 34 So. 3d 1121 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.01/14/03)
  • State v. Jones 35 So. 3d 1162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • State of Louisiana v. David Paul Guidry 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. Guidry 30 So. 3d 1187 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. Thurman 30 So. 3d 1185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • State v. George 39 So. 3d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    He contends the judge imposed the sentence because he believed George simply lacked remorse for the crime, and argues the judge instead should have deviated from the mandatory sentence
  • State of Louisiana v. Todd Vincent Edwards La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Wilson 32 So. 3d 1152 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    See State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.01/14/03)
  • State v. Woods 38 So. 3d 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    State v. Balser, 96-443, p. 5 (La.App.
  • State v. Dyas 32 So. 3d 364 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Little 30 So. 3d 286 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Collins 35 So. 3d 1103 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. Davidson 32 So. 3d 290 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03), ; (La.
  • State v. Conner 30 So. 3d 1132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    At the sentencing hearing on remand, defense counsel argued that the statutory minimum sentence of twenty years without benefit of probation, parole
  • State v. Laster 33 So. 3d 259 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.01/14/03)
  • State v. Turner 32 So. 3d 277 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
  • State v. Burns 32 So. 3d 261 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03), ; State v.Bonanno
  • State v. Stutts 26 So. 3d 320 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Allen 30 So. 3d 1049 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
  • State v. McKEAVER 32 So. 3d 909 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.01/14/03)
  • State v. Holden 30 So. 3d 1053 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Autry 30 So. 3d 1068 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
  • State v. Wallace 31 So. 3d 557 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
  • State v. Lewis 31 So. 3d 1144 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.01/14/03)
  • State v. Otero 31 So. 3d 1125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    State v. Johnson, 03-620 at 14, 860 So.2d at 189-90
  • State v. Allen 30 So. 3d 1024 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • State of Louisiana v. Joseph T. Plauche 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. Plauche 32 So. 3d 852 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    “ ‘[T]he excessiveness of a sentence becomes a question of law reviewable under the appellate jurisdiction of this court.’” ().
  • State v. Lofton 25 So. 3d 252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State v. Negron 25 So. 3d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    2d 672 , which established the defendant's burden in determining whether the trial court properly imposed, (La.
  • State v. Victorian 25 So. 3d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State v. Washington 26 So. 3d 922 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.01/14/03)
  • State v. JBB 25 So. 3d 255 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • State of Louisiana v. Malcolm James Simon AKA Malcolm Simon AKA Malcolm J. Simon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    2861, 2866, 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977); State v. Handy, 96-2505, p. 1 (La.1/6/97)