Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Cossee, 678 So. 2d 72.

31 citing documents.

State v. Hall 172 So. 3d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 7/24/96), -73 , explained: A threshold question is whether the defendant has preserved this issue for appellate review.
State v. Hackett 122 So. 3d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Landfair 70 So. 3d 1061 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
4 Cir. 7/24/96) , , this Court discussed the procedural requirements for objecting to the sufficiency of State’s evidence regarding a defendant’s prior convictions: the Louisiana Legislature amended La.
State v. Causey 67 So. 3d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Phillips 61 So. 3d 130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Randall 51 So. 3d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
4 Cir. 7/24/96) , , this Court discussed the procedural requirements for objecting to the sufficiency of State’s evidence regarding a defendant’s prior convictions as follows: the Louisiana Legislature amended La.
State v. Wilson 956 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
State v. Santee 834 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
4 Cir. 7/24/96) , , this Court held that the failure to file a written response to the multiple bill as required by La.
State v. Walker 789 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Lewis 782 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Chairs 780 So. 2d 1088 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
4 Cir. 7/24/96) , , this court held that the failure to file a written response to the multiple bill, as required by La.
State v. Lewis 776 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Crowell 773 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
4 Cir. 7/24/96) , , this Court held that the failure to file a written response to the multiple bill as required by La.Rev.
State v. Everett 770 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
4 Cir. 7/24/96) , , this Court held that the failure to file a written response to the multiple bill as required by La.
State v. Weaver 770 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Alford 765 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
4 Cir. 7/24/96) , , this Court held that the failure to file a written response to the multiple bill as required by La.
State v. Hayden 767 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
4 Cir. 7/24/96) ; , this Court held that the failure to file a written response to the multiple bill as required by LSA-R.S.
State v. Harris 761 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Bazile 762 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
4 Cir. 7/24/96) , , this Court held that the failure to file a written response to the multiple bill as required by La.
State v. Alexander 753 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
4 Cir. 7/24/96) , , this court held that the failure to file a written response to the multiple bill as required by LSA-R.S.
State v. Preston 752 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
4 Cir. 7/24/96) , , this Court held that the failure to file a written response to the multiple bill as required by La.
State v. Thompson 752 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Washington 747 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Washington 747 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Crawford 749 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Richmond 734 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Richmond 734 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Short 725 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Smith 715 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Winfrey 703 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
4th Cir. 7/24/96), , the Fourth Circuit considered the above provision and concluded that a defendant must file a written response to the habitual offender bill in order to preserve for appeal the issue of sufficiency of proof of the prior conviction based on a plea of guilty.
State v. Neville 695 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
App. 4th Cir. 7/24/96), .