DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Smith, 639 So. 2d 237.

163 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Frederick Curtis Mangrum La. 2024
    7/5/94), (reh’g denied); La.C.Cr.P.
  • State of Louisiana v. Terry Len Joseph La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
  • State v. Gibson 192 So. 3d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    Cf. State v. Smith, 93-0402, p. 3 (La.7/5/94), (a district judge has complete discretion to impose any sentence within the statutory sentencing range that is not constitutionally excessive) (emphasis added).
  • State ex rel. Odom v. State 209 So. 3d 777 La. 2016
  • State v. Burford 902 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    State v. Smith, 93-0402 (La.7/5/94), ; State v. Woodman, 28,004 (La.App.
  • State v. Rogers 812 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    1984), State v. Cook, 95-2784 (La.5/31/96), , and State v. Smith, 93-0402 (La.7/5/94), .
  • State v. McBride 773 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    State v. Smith, 93-0402, p. 7-8 (La.7/5/94), ( on reh'g ) ( reh'g denied ).
  • State v. Rice 758 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    State v. Smith, 93-0402 (La.7/5/94), ; State v. Coleman, 94-0666 (La.App.
  • State v. LaGrange 750 So. 2d 1006 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    ” State v. Smith, 93-0402 (La.7/5/94), (on rehearing)(footnote omitted).
  • State v. Bonicard 752 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    In State v. Smith, 93-0402 (La.7/5/94), , the Louisiana Supreme Court found that a sentence of fifteen years at hard labor on a defendant's conviction for purse snatching was not excessive.
  • State v. Melder 728 So. 2d 971 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Smith, 93-0402 (La.7/5/94), (on rehearing).
  • State v. Manuel 722 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    art. 894.1; State v. Smith, 93-0402 (La.7/5/94); ; and the Louisiana Felony Sentencing Guidelines.
  • State v. Hardaway 715 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    State v. Smith, 93-0402, p. 7-8 (La.7/5/94), (on reh'g) (reh'g denied)....
  • State v. Harris 711 So. 2d 266 La. 1998
    State v. Smith, 93-0402 (La.7/5/94), (on rehearing).
  • State v. Bowie 705 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Smith, 93-0402 (La.7/5/94); , established the scope of review to be applied when a defendant complains that a sentence is excessive when it is in excess of the Guidelines.
  • State v. Lagrange 702 So. 2d 1005 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    State v. Smith, 93-0402 (La.7/5/94); , clearly does not require the trial judge to state every mitigating or aggravating circumstance applicable; [^rather, the judge must consider the guidelines and state his reasons for the sentence imposed.
  • State v. Cormier 702 So. 2d 929 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    State v. Smith, 93-0402 (La.7/5/94); .
  • State v. Washington 700 So. 2d 1068 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Banks 699 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    At the time this defendant was sentenced, June 20, 1995, the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision of State v. Smith, 93-0402 (La.7/5/94); , on rehearing, controlled the sentencing of defendants.
  • State v. Williams 688 So. 2d 1343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    However, the record reveals that the trial court did, in fact, consider the sentencing guidelines as required by State v. Smith, 93-402 (La.7/5/94); .
  • State v. Hebert 688 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    State v. Cook, 95-2784 (La.05/31/96), ; State v. Smith, 93-0402 (La.07/05/94), (on rehearing).
  • State v. Colarte 688 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    State v. Smith, 93-0402, p. 3 (La.7/5/94); (on rehearing).
  • State v. Harris 684 So. 2d 976 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    7 /5/94, (on rehearing).
  • State v. Ledet 694 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    State v. Smith, 93-0402 (La.7/5/94), .
  • State v. Goodman 684 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    State v. Smith, 93-402 (La.7/5/94); .
  • State v. Zabaleta 683 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    unt and the factual basis for the sentence imposed, and the sentence is within the statutory sentencing range for the crime of which the defendant has been convicted, “an appellate court is limited to a review of the sentence imposed for constitutional excessiveness, without regard as to whether the trial judge either employed or deviated from the Guidelines.” State v. Smith, 93-0402 (La.7/5/94), ,240 on rehearing.
  • State v. McAlister 681 So. 2d 1280 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    State v. Smith, 93-0402, p. 3 (La.7/5/94), (on rehearing) (footnote omitted).
  • State v. Steward 681 So. 2d 1007 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    State v. Smith, 93-0402, p. 3 (La.7/5/94); (on rehearing).
  • State v. Milstead 681 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    State v. Smith, 93-0402 (La.7/5/94), ; State v. Williams, 93-1422 (La.
  • State v. Rogers 681 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    State v. Smith, 93-0402, p. 3 (La.7/5/94); (on rehearing)(footnote omitted).
  • State v. Kimble 688 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Singleton 680 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Douglas 679 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    7/5/94), , a trial judge, having properly considered the guidelines, has complete discretion to reject the guidelines and impose any sentence which is not constitutionally excessive, provided that the trial court states for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis for imposition of sentence.
  • State v. Martin 679 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    State v. Smith, 93-0402 (La 7/5/94), ; State v. Tumblin, 27,122 (La.
  • State v. McCray 679 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Allen 677 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    7/5/94), (on rehearing), and State v. Matthews, 26,550 (La.App.
  • State v. Price 677 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    7/5/94), (on rehearing) (footnote omitted).
  • State v. Sellen 677 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    7/5/94), ; State v. *586 Tumblin, 27,122 (La.App.
  • State v. Jasper 677 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    07/05/94), (on rehearing).
  • State v. Cook 674 So. 2d 957 La. 1996
    7/5/94), (on reh'g) (reh'g denied).
  • State v. Graves 675 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    7/5/94); (on rehearing) (footnote omitted).
  • State v. Leagea 673 So. 2d 646 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    7/5/94), (on rehearing), we are limited to a review of the sentence for constitutional excessiveness without regard as to whether the trial court employed or deviated from the guidelines.
  • State v. Rubalcava 674 So. 2d 1035 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    07/05/94), ; State v. Walters, 26,647 (La.App.2d Cir. 12/07/94), .
  • State v. Crews 674 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    7/5/94), , a trial judge having properly considered the guidelines, has the complete discretion to reject them and impose any sentence which is not constitutionally excessive, provided the trial court states for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis for the imposition of sentence.
  • State v. Nelson 674 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    7/5/94); (on rehearing); (La.App.
  • State v. Pardue 671 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    7/06/94), ; State v. Farley, 26,-377 (La.App.2d Cir. 9/21/94), ; State v. Walters, 26,647 (La.App.2d Cir. 12/07/94), .
  • State v. Lindsey 671 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    7/5/94), (on rehearing).
  • State v. Kerrigan 671 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Carrier 670 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    7/5/94), , discussed the process of appellate review of a trial court's sentencing process and held that: (1) [W]hile a trial judge must consider the Guidelines, he has complete discretion to reject the Guidelines and impose any sentence which is not constitutionally excessive, but is within the statutory sentencing range for
  • State v. Sturdivant 669 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    07/05/94), ; State v. Tumblin, 27, 122 (La.App.2d Cir. 06/21/95), .