Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Rome, 630 So. 2d 1284.

127 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Calvin Jermaine Lee La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2026
1/14/94), State v. Bratton, supra.
State of Louisiana v. Willie J. Stevens, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
State v. Rome, 93–1221 (La.1/14/94), –89 (joint motions for continuance constitute preliminary pleas for purposes of art. 580); State v. Anderson, 38,718, p. 19 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Bryan Dawayne Kibodeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
1st Cir.1987), writ denied, ); see also State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), –89.
State of Louisiana v. Mitch Bratton La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana Versus Patricia Jefferson La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
Our supreme court, in State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), observed: The purpose of the statute's mandating dismissal, when legislative time limits have elapsed, is to enforce the accused's right to a speedy trial and to prevent the oppression caused by suspending criminal prosecutions over citizens for indefinite periods of time.
State of Louisiana in the Interest of T.S.. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
1/14/94), State v. Causey, 02-1848, p. 5 (La.
State Of Louisiana v. Dustin Michael Means La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana Versus Rashaud L. Robinson La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Willie J. Stevens, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
1/14/94), the supreme court summarized the difference between interruptions and suspensions as follows: An interruption of prescription occurs when the state is unable, through no fault of its own, to try a defendant within the period specified by statute, in this case two years.
State of Louisiana v. Felton Thompson La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Deismond Derral Simmons La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
1/14/94), -87 (case citations omitted) (footnote omitted).
La. 2020
Rephrased in contemporary language, “The general rule is that appellate courts will not consider issues raised for the first 7 See, e.g., State v. Rome , (La.
State of Louisiana v. Calvin Javontae Dshawn Powell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Gerard Ladmirault La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
1994), the Supreme Court explained that “[a]n interruption of prescription occurs when the state is unable, through no fault of its own, to try a defendant within the period specified by statute.
State Of Louisiana v. Nicholas Revish La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
1/ 14/ 94), State v. Reed, 2016- 1201 ( La.
State v. Broussard 269 So. 3d 1094 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
1/14/94), , 1286-87 (footnote omitted).
State of Louisiana v. Damon Broussard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
1/14/94), -87 (footnote omitted).
State v. Brown 240 So. 3d 284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
1/14/94), , 1286 ; State v. Stewart , 2015-0135, p. 6 (La.
State v. Thomas 223 So. 3d 759 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
1/14/94), ; State v. McDonald, 30,854 (La.
State v. Reed 218 So. 3d 729 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
1/14/94), ; State v. Lathers, 2005-0786 (La.App.
State v. Lewis 209 So. 3d 202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Jon Wray Baumberger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Baumberger 200 So. 3d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
State v. Otkins-Victor 193 So. 3d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), (hold.ing that the filing of a motion to change venue was a preliminary plea that suspended.
State v. Victor 195 So. 3d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), (holding that the filing of a motion to change venue was a preliminary plea that suspended rather than interrupted prescription under La.
State of Louisiana Versus Errol Victor, Sr. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
1/14/94), (holding that the filing of a motion to change venue was a preliminary plea that suspended rather than interrupted prescription under La.
State v. Pierre 192 So. 3d 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
The two-year time limitation should be given ^effect and mandates dismissal, “unless the state carries its burden of showing valid grounds to support an interruption or sufficient suspension of these time periods.” State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), ; Stewart , 2015-0135 at p. 6, 176 So.3d at 469 .
State v. Burrell 189 So. 3d 481 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State v. Rome, 1993-1221 (La.01/14/94), ; State v. Barnett, 50,213 (La.App.2d Cir.08/12/15), .
State v. Handy 184 So. 3d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that the failure to adhere to the two-year time limitation should be given effect “unless the state carries its burden of showing valid grounds to support an interruption or sufficient suspension of these time periods.” State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
State v. Bruno 185 So. 3d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
State v. Stewart 176 So. 3d 465 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 10/30/13), , writ denied, 13-2603 (La.4/17/14), , quoting State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
State v. LeBlanc 173 So. 3d 1218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 4/9/14), (quoting State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), ).
State v. Barnett 174 So. 3d 748 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
P. art. 532(7); State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.01/14/94), ; State v. Lathan, 41,855 (La.App.2d Cir.02/28/07), , writ denied, 07-0805 (La.03/28/08), ; State v. Harris, 29, 574 (La.App.2d Cir.05/07/97), .
State v. Domino 216 So. 3d 898 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Romar, 2007-2140, p. 3 (La.7/1/08), (citing State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), ) (citations | ¿omitted).
State v. Major 172 So. 3d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
“When defendant has brought an apparently meritorious motion to quash based on prescription, the state bears a heavy burden to demonstrate either an interruption or a suspension of the time limit |4such that prescription will not have tolled.” State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), (citations omitted).
State v. Brown 161 So. 3d 99 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Therefore, “[w]hen defendant has brought an apparently meritorious motion to quash based on prescription, the state bears a heavy burden to demonstrate either an interruption or a suspension of the time limit such that prescription will not have tolled.” State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), ; see Ramirez, 07-0652, p. 4, 976 So.2d at 207 ; State v. Joseph, 12-1176, pp. 2-3 (La.App.
State of Louisiana in the Interest of J.M. 156 So. 3d 1161 La. 2014
1/14/94), State v. Causey, 02-1848, p. 5 (La.
State v. Pierre 146 So. 3d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
The two-year time limitation should be given effect and mandate dismissal, “unless the State carries its burden of showing valid grounds to support an interruption or sufficient suspension of these time periods.” State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), .
State v. Major 140 So. 3d 174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
“When a defendant has brought an apparently meritorious motion to quash based on prescription, the state bears a heavy burden to demonstrate either an interruption or a suspension of the time limit such that prescription will not have tolled.” State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
State v. Thomas 138 So. 3d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See Ramirez, 07-0652, p. 4, 976 So.2d at 207 (citing State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), ).
State v. Gregory 137 So. 3d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See Ramirez, 07-0652 at p. 4, 976 *668 So.2d at 207 (citing State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), ).
State v. Anderson 132 So. 3d 1265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
State of Louisiana v. Deke Edmond Duraso La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Duraso 127 So. 3d 1015 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See also State v. Fish, 05-1929 (La.4/17/06), (citing State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), ).
State v. Brady 131 So. 3d 166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Rome, 93-1221, pp. 3-4 (La.1/14/94), (
State v. Reyer 129 So. 3d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Brumfield, pp. 7-8, 104 So.3d at 706 , citing State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), .
State v. Lawson 129 So. 3d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), -1287 .
State v. Tucker 126 So. 3d 834 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The two year time limitation should be given effect and mandate dismissal, “unless the state carries its burden of showing valid grounds to support an interruption or sufficient suspension of these time periods.” State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
State v. Joseph 112 So. 3d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Romar, 2007-2140, p. 3 (La.7/1/08), (citing State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), ) (citations omitted).
State v. Travis 109 So. 3d 1036 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .