DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Rolen, 662 So. 2d 446.

46 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. James D. Flemones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
  • State v. Collins 275 So. 3d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
  • State v. Harrell 247 So. 3d 1030 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
    09/15/95), ; State v. Wiltcher, supra .
  • State v. Casaday 223 So. 3d 108 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
    9/15/95), ; State v. Boykin, supra.
  • State v. Easter 170 So. 3d 1051 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    State v. Rolen, 1995-0347 (La.9/15/95), .
  • State v. Taylor 118 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    In State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the features of an ex post facto law: For a criminal or penal law to fall within this prohibition, it “must apply to events occurring before its enactment, and it must disadvantage the offender affected by it.” Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 29 , 101 S.Ct.
  • State v. Waddell 102 So. 3d 1025 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    State v. Rolen, 95-0347, pp. 5-6 (La.9/15/95), .
  • State v. Hoerner 88 So. 3d 1128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Granger 982 So. 2d 779 La. 2008
    2481 , 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990); see also State v. Rolen, 95-0347, p. 6 (La.9/15/95), (per curiam) (finding that the societal costs of impaired driving have been well documented); (upholding the constitutionality of harsher penalties for repeat D.W.I.
  • Williams v. Creed 978 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95), ; State v. Delaughter, 29,974 (La.
  • State v. Wiltcher 956 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95), .
  • State v. Mourra 940 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    State v. Rolen, 95-0347, p. 3 (La.9/15/95), (quoting United States.
  • Payton v. Cooper 928 So. 2d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    See State v. Rolen, 95-0347, pp. 4-6 (La.9/15/95), -49 .
  • State v. Isidore 845 So. 2d 1123 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    In State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95), (per curiam), the court held that applying the amended cleansing period to DWI offenses committed after the amendment did not violate the Ex Post Facto clauses of the United States and Louisiana Constitutions.
  • State v. Woods 828 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    This court distinguished State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95), , which involved a DWI second offense, on the ground that at the time Rolen committed the second offense, he had been placed on notice that the first offense, occurring more than five but less than ten years prior to second offense, could be used to enhance the second offense.
  • State v. Everett 816 So. 2d 1272 La. 2002
    State v. Rolen, 95-0347, p. 3 (La.9/15/95), (quoting United States.
  • State v. Abram 803 So. 2d 1018 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    The Louisiana Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95), , and found that the change in the cleansing period of the DWI statute, La.
  • State v. Smith 794 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    [1] The defendant also cites State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95), , 447 in support of his position.
  • State v. Henry 788 So. 2d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    He concedes the Louisiana Supreme Court previously decided the issue against his position in State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95), (per curiam), but asks this court to revisit the issue on the basis of State v. Duke, 94-0312 (La.App.
  • State v. Williams 788 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    In State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95), , the court stated: For purposes of analyzing the ex post facto implications of repeat offender statutes and statutes increasing penalties for future crimes based on past crimes, "the relevant `offense' is the current crime, not the predicate crime."
  • State v. Lewis 782 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/85), ; State v. Causey, 98-1946 (La.App.
  • State v. Richardson 780 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95), ; State v. Carr, 96-2388 (La.App.
  • State v. Theriot 782 So. 2d 1078 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    9/15/95, revised 11/1/95), , 448: Art. I, § 10 of the United States Constitution and La.
  • State v. Boykin 774 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95), ; State v. Ignot, 29,745 (La.App.
  • State v. Chisolm 771 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95); ; State v. Carr, 96-2388 (La.App.
  • State v. Everett 770 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    In State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court was faced with an expansion from 5 to 10 years of the cleansing period for the DWI multiple offender statute, R.S.
  • State v. Carthan 765 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    As the supreme court stated in State v. Rolen, 95-347, p. 5 (La.9/15/95); , 449: "Cleansing periods are, however, purely statutory rules constituting self-imposed restraints on the state's plenary power to define and punish crimes.
  • State v. Pelas 745 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    See State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95), .
  • George v. Baker 746 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    State v. Rolen, 95-0347, p. 3 (La.9/15/95), .
  • State v. Brady 727 So. 2d 1264 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    In State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95), , the defendant was convicted of his second offense of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, a violation of La.
  • State v. Lugar 734 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95), .
  • State v. Ste. Marie 723 So. 2d 407 La. 1998
    rtunities for prosecution of sex crimes against children consistent with the general purpose of limitation statutes, which "`protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past.'" State v. Rolen, 95-0347, p. 5 (La.9/15/95), (quoting Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 114-15 , 90 S.Ct.
  • State v. Davis 722 So. 2d 1049 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Defendant concedes the supreme court held in State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95), , that the retroactive application of the enlarged cleansing period of Act No. 669 does not constitute a prohibited expost-facto law.
  • State v. Robinson 713 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    In State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the features of an ex post facto law: For a criminal or penal law to fall within this prohibition, it "must apply to events occurring before its enactment, and it must disadvantage the offender affected by it."
  • State v. Roach 706 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    In support of its argument, the state relies on the case of State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95), , which involved the DWI enhanced offense statute, LSA-R.S.
  • State v. Ignot 701 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    In State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.09/15/95), , our supreme court rejected an argument similar to that made by the defendant in the present case: [Unlike statutes of limitation,] [c]leansing periods are ...
  • State v. Carr 699 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    See State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95), ; State v. Boykin, 29,141 (La.App.
  • State v. Brinson 699 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    9/15/95), which involved the DWI enhanced offense statute, La.R.S.
  • State v. Keys 694 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Boykin 688 So. 2d 1250 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    9/15/95), , the supreme court affirmed the multiple-offense driving while intoxicated conviction of a woman whose prior conviction had occurred more than five but less than ten years prior to the adoption of the ten-year driving while intoxicated cleansing period.
  • State v. Morgan 686 So. 2d 1048 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    Recently, in State v. Rolen, 95-0347 (La.9/15/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated the following: ...
  • State v. Singleton 680 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    9/15/95, revised 11/1/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court considered the criteria used to determine whether a law falls under the ex post facto prohibition: For a criminal or penal law to fall within this prohibition, it "must apply to events occurring before its enactment, and it must disadvantage the offender affected by it."
  • State v. Cook 674 So. 2d 957 La. 1996
    9/15/95), ("No one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it.") (quoting Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 451 , 110 S.Ct.
  • State v. Bodenheimer 665 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
    9/15/95, revised 11/1/95), , 448: Art. I, § 10 of the United States Constitution and La.
  • State v. Highfill 671 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    9/15/95), , in which the Louisiana Supreme Court considered the exact issue raised in this case.
  • State v. Jordan 663 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995