Cited by

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

2014 citing documents.

State v. Hamilton 666 So. 2d 655 La. 1996
State v. Kelly 666 So. 2d 1082 La. 1996
State v. Hebert 669 So. 2d 499 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
On October 14, 1994, the trial court sentenced the appellant to the minimum term of four years at hard labor, but suspended the sentence and placed the defendant on five years probation
State v. Guy 669 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
In his sixth assignment of error, (La.
State v. Woodman 666 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State v. Adams 666 So. 2d 1308 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State v. Clayborn 666 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State v. Famous 667 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State v. Thompson, supra .
State v. Kingston 668 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
as the basis for sentencing the defendant to a term of imprisonment less than that required by the Habitual Offender Law.
State v. Gordon 668 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
the trial court's reasons for departing below the statutory mandatory minimum was inadequate under Dorthey .
State v. Davis 666 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
In support of his argument
State v. Lombard 662 So. 2d 1039 La. 1995
State v. Wright 664 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
15:529.1, and a trial judge, could determine that the mandatory minimum sentence imposed under La.R.S.
State v. Fontenot 664 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
State v. Young 663 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
State v. Coates 661 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Evans 661 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Hyorth 661 So. 2d 1059 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
State v. Eggerson 661 So. 2d 1096 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
to impose a lesser sentence than the minimum under the multiple offender statute.
State v. Sanford 660 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Krogh 659 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
This Court then vacated appellant’s
State v. Hopkins 663 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that the habitual offender statute does not on its face impose cruel and unusual punishment.
State v. Legaux 658 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Whittington v. Wall 657 So. 2d 1058 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Tumblin 658 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Jones 657 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
A sentence is constitutionally excessive if it “makes no measurable contribu *428 tion 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.” (La.
State v. Brown 656 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
State v. Baxley 656 So. 2d 973 La. 1995
Likewise, this court allowed a defendant who was charged by a bill of information with violating the habitual offender statute to challenge the constitutionality of the range of sentences to which he was exposed under the multiple bill.
State v. Williams 655 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Slater 655 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Stewart 656 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Pilcher 655 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Manuel 657 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Townley 657 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
State v. Dominick 658 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
State v. Hebert 652 So. 2d 1049 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
In light of a writ application filed by the State of Louisiana, we certified the following questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court: (1) allow a trial court to impose a sentence that is below the minimum sentence permitted under the substantive offense for which the defendant was convicted?
State v. Frank 652 So. 2d 121 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
However, that a trial court may, in certain circumstances, impose a lesser sentence than that which is mandated by the multiple offender statute: If, [in sentencing defendant] the trial judge were to find that the punishment mandated by R.S.
State v. Hodges 651 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
*488 However, the trial judge, concluded that these sentencing ranges were constitutionally excessive.
State v. Abbott 650 So. 2d 1223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
as the basis for sentencing defendant below the statutory minimum of thirty-three (33) years.
State v. Smith 649 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Norris 649 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Soraparu 649 So. 2d 1100 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
-81 (La.1993)) but is within the statutory sentencing range for the crime of which a defendant has been convicted, so long as he states for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis for his imposition of that sentence, La.Code Cr.P.
State v. Youngblood 647 So. 2d 1388 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Davis 647 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Jeffers 645 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Pollard 644 So. 2d 370 La. 1994
1976), we grant the application, vacate the ruling below
State v. Tuttle 643 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Moore 642 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Grant 641 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
er the guidelines, he has complete discretion to reject the guidelines and impose any sentence which is not constitutionally excessive, but which is within the statutory sentencing range for the crime for which the defendant has been convicted, so long as he states for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis for his imposition of that sentence.” the court enunciated the following standard for determining whether a sentence is constitutionally excessive: “A punishme
State v. Smith 639 So. 2d 237 La. 1994