Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Dorthey, 623 So. 2d 1276.

2014 citing documents.

State v. Mendenhall 948 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Semien 948 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
"`[T]he excessiveness of a sentence becomes a question of law reviewable under the appellate jurisdiction of this court.'" ().
State of Louisiana v. Leroy Semien La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
“ ‘[T]he excessiveness of a sentence becomes a question of law reviewable under the appellate jurisdiction of this court.’ ” ().
State v. Jones 948 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Thomas 948 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Robinson 948 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Thomas 951 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
-1281 (La.1993), the supreme court held that when a trial court determines the minimum sentence mandated by La.
State v. Darensbourg 948 So. 2d 1128 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
State v. Shirley 945 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Boudreaux 945 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.01/14/03)
State v. Wheeler 945 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Shirley 945 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Gay 945 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Shumaker 945 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Till 945 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Henderson 945 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Christaw 945 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Browhow 945 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Lemons 942 So. 2d 33 La. 2006
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 to acceptable goals of punishment," or is nothing more than "the purposeful impositi
State of Louisiana v. Darrel Brent Whatley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
“‘[T]he excessiveness of a sentence becomes a question of 4 law reviewable under the appellate jurisdiction of this court.’” ().
State of Louisiana v. Charles Ray Anderson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
2861, 2866, 53 L.Ed.2d 982 6 (1977); State v. Handy, 96-2505, p. 1 (La.1/6/97)
State v. Whatley 943 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
"`[T]he excessiveness of a sentence becomes a question of law reviewable under the appellate jurisdiction of this court.'" ().
State v. TICHELI 942 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Woods 942 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Anderson 945 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
State v. Johnson , 03-620 at p. 14, (La.App.
State v. Craig 944 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
-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"
State v. Yates 940 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State of Louisiana v. Alan D. Simmons La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
2861, 2866, 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977); State v. Handy, 96-2505, p. 1 (La.1/6/97)
State of Louisiana v. Wade C. Griffin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
“ ‘[T]he excessiveness of a sentence becomes a question of law reviewable under the appellate jurisdiction of this court.’ ” ().
State of Louisiana v. Leroy Waguespack La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
In support of his argument, and Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct.
State v. Waguespack 939 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
In support of his argument, and Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct.
State v. Griffin 940 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
"`[T]he excessiveness *855 of a sentence becomes a question of law reviewable under the appellate jurisdiction of this court.'" ().
State v. Smith 940 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Dorsey 939 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Hasty 940 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Dorthey, 92-3120 (La.9/10/93)
State v. Bailey 940 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Young 943 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
See State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 8 (La.3/4/98), -77 ; -81 (La.1993).
State v. Chandler 939 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
In considering Chandler's assertions, and State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , which address this issue of mandatory minimum sentence in the context of the habitual offender law.
State v. Washington 939 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Wilson 938 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Smith, 2001-2574 (La.1/14/03)
State v. Greenwalt 938 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. James 938 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Keener 939 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Nugent 938 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Hodge 938 So. 2d 1066 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Dorthey, 92-3120 (La.9/10/93)
State v. Rankin 938 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Smith 936 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
He verbally objected to the sentence at the sentencing hearing, but did not file a
State v. Brisco 933 So. 2d 754 La. 2006
State v. King 935 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. King 935 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006