Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Rome, 696 So. 2d 976.

26 citing documents.

State ex rel. Esteen v. State 239 So. 3d 266 La. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Asahel Harvin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Adam Comeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State v. Harvin 239 So. 3d 907 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Comeaux 239 So. 3d 920 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State Ex Rel. John Esteen v. State of Louisiana 239 So. 3d 233 La. 2018
7/1/97), (emphasis added, internal citations and footnote omitted).
State v. Mills 137 So. 3d 8 La. 2014
15:824(A) (“Any individual subject to confinement in a state adult penal or correctional institution shall be committed to the Louisiana Department of Corrections and not to any particular institution within the jurisdiction of the department.”); see also State v. Rome, 96-0991, p. 7 (La.7/1/97), (“A trial judge cannot designate the particular place of confinement wherein a defendant will serve his term of imprisonment.”) (citing *10 ).
State v. Passow 136 So. 3d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Rome, 96-0991 (La.7/1/97), ; -81 (La.1993).
State v. Maldonado 96 So. 3d 1221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
art. 894.2 and found that a trial judge may “sentence a defendant to home incarceration in lieu of imprisonment, even though the statute the defendant was convicted under requires the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.” State v. Rome, 96-0991, p. 5 (La.7/1/97), .
State v. Breaux 96 So. 3d 1226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Further, in State v. Rome, 96-0991 (La.7/1/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court, in discussing LSA-C.Cr.P.
State v. Smith 1 So. 3d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
The Louisiana Supreme Court recognized the trial judge’s authority under Article 894.2 “to sentence a defendant to home incarceration in lieu of imprisonment, even though the statute the defendant was convicted under requires the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.” State v. Rome, 96-0991, p. 5 (La.7/1/97), .
State v. Dick 951 So. 2d 124 La. 2007
Const. art. II, § 1; State v. Rome, 96-0991, p. 3 (La.7/1/97)
State v. Brown 880 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
Citing State v. Rome, 96-0991 (La.7/1/97), ; and, State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Warren 824 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that “an illegal sentence results in a situation where ‘no sentence at all has been imposed, and it [the sentence] must be remanded to the district court so that the judge may impose a legal sentence.’ ” State v. Rome, 96-0991 (La.7/1/97), , quoting State v. Johnson, 220 La.
State v. Williams 800 So. 2d 790 La. 2001
[11] This Court had earlier stated than an illegal sentence is "no sentence at all," State v. Rome, 96-0991 (La.7/1/97), , quoting State v.Johnson, 220 La.
State v. Durant 776 So. 2d 1265 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
In State v. Rome, 96-0991 (La.7/1/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held: One of the traditional, inherent and exclusive powers of the judiciary is the power to sentence....
State v. Jackson 778 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Rome, 96-0991 (La.7/1/97), .
State v. Russell 750 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
deviated from the statutory minimum, because “he is a relatively young man who can be rehabilitated.” The Louisiana Supreme Court, stated that “[i]t is a well established principle that it is the legislature’s prerogative to determine the length of the sentence imposed for crimes classified as felonies.” State v. Rome, 96-0991 (La.7/1/97), .
State v. Le 738 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
This argument calls into question the separation of powers issues discussed in State v. Rome, 96-0991 (La.7/1/97), .
State v. Smith 734 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
the Louisiana Supreme Court said: “One of the traditional, inherent and exclusive powers of the judiciary is the power to sentence.
State v. Ewens 735 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
[4] In State v. Rome, 96-0991 (La.7/1/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court, held that [o]ne of the traditional, inherent and exclusive powers of the judiciary is the power to sentence.
State v. Lewis 720 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
The state relies on the case of State v. Rome, 96-0991 (La.7/1/97), in support of its argument.
State v. Richards 713 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
State v. Jones 709 So. 2d 308 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
State v. Rome, 96-0991 (La.7/1/97), .
State v. Curtis 707 So. 2d 1328 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
In State v. Rome, 96-0991 (La.7/1/97), the court noted that the determination of what constitutes a crime, as well as the fixing of penalties for the commission of crimes, is purely a legislative function.
State v. Moses 701 So. 2d 1382 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State v. Rome, 96-0991, pp. 3-4 (La.7/1/97); .