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. Johnson, 709 So. 2d 672.

796 citing documents.

  • State v. Roland 850 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.03/04/98), .
  • State v. Augillard 853 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Dupre 848 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98)
  • State v. Combs 848 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), ; -81 (La.1993).
  • State v. Holloway 847 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Simmons 848 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Jerome 845 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    [8] State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Cushinello, 01-109 (La.
  • State v. Willis 843 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.03/04/98), ; State v. Gay, 34,371 (La.
  • State v. Thomas 842 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; Wade, supra.
  • State v. Durden 842 So. 2d 1244 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    State v. Walter Johnson, 97-1906 (La.03/04/98), .
  • State v. Anderson 842 So. 2d 1222 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    State v. Dorthey, *1232 supra ; See also State v. Walter Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98/), .
  • State v. Robinson 846 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    15:529.1; State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Gaddis 839 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98)
  • State v. Bentley 844 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 8 (La.03/04/98), -677 .
  • State v. Bolton 844 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    [13] 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Green 839 So. 2d 970 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    State v. Walter Johnson, 97-1906 (La.03/04/98)
  • State v. Parker 845 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    1 Cir. 6/25/99) , , writ denied, 99-2136 (La.6/16/00), , which outlined the criteria in State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , which should be considered by the trial judge to depart downward from the mandatory minimum sentences in the habitual offender law.
  • State v. Hayes 845 So. 2d 542 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    After reconsideration of that assignment of error, using State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , as a guide, we again vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing.
  • State v. Terrase 841 So. 2d 947 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
  • State v. Thomas 841 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    means that because of unusual circumstances this defendant is a victim of the legislature’s failure to assign sentences that are meaningfully tailored to the culpability of the offender, the gravity of the offense and the circumstances of the case.” State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 8 (La.03/04/98), , citing State v. Young, 94-1636 (La.App.
  • State v. Ricks 841 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Brooks 841 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Armstrong, 99-925 (La.
  • State v. Hardy 836 So. 2d 1249 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    In State v. Johnson, 1997-1906, (La.3/4/98), , the supreme court also held that the burden is on the defendant to rebut the presumption that a mandatory minimum sentence is constitutional.
  • State v. Alvey 839 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), ; -81 (La.1993).
  • State v. Thornton 836 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    In State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.03/04/98), , in the context of habitual offender sentencing, the supreme court stated: [T]o rebut the presumption that the mandatory minimum sentence is constitutional, the defendant must clearly and convincingly show that: [he] is exceptional, which in this context means that because of unusual circumstances this defendant is a
  • State v. Simmons 839 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98)
  • State v. Harris 839 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    1739 , 149 L.Ed.2d 663 (2001); State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98)
  • State v. Stevenson 839 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Hernandez 839 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 8 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Jefferson, 01-1139, p. 9 (La.
  • State v. Wilson 839 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), ; -81 (La.1993).
  • State v. Lott 836 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Wilson 833 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    We note that upon remand, Defendant will be given the opportunity to argue that a and State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98); .
  • State v. Everidge 834 So. 2d 1197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Foster 834 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Webster, 98-0807, p. 3 (La.App.
  • State v. Paddio 832 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 8 (La.3/4/98), ( quoting from Judge Plotkin's concurrence in State v. Young, 94-1636, pp. 5-6 (La.App.
  • State v. Hamilton 834 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    See, State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Doleman 835 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Webster, 98-0807, p. 3 (La.App.
  • State v. Decay 833 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98)
  • State v. Lewis 834 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Wilson 836 So. 2d 2 La. 2002
    this court held that the mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years imprisonment was not unconstitutionally excessive for possession of cocaine by defendant as fourth-felony offender, even though defendant had no history of prior violent crimes.
  • State v. Abram 832 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 8 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Laird 829 So. 2d 1098 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Because it was not raised at the trial court level, the criteria set forth in State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , were not satisfied.
  • State v. Prudhomme 829 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98); .
  • State v. Cho 831 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
  • State v. Robinson 831 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98)
  • State v. Neal 830 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Lindsey, 99-3302, 99-3256 (La.10/17/00), , cert.
  • State v. Wade 832 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Allen 828 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Gay, supra .
  • State v. Woods 828 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 8 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Lee 826 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    See State v. Dorthey, supra ; State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .