Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Johnson, 709 So. 2d 672.

796 citing documents.

State v. Wilson 796 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
State v. Walter Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. King 804 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
The State counters that the defendant failed to show that he was exceptional as is required under State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , to rebut the presumption that a mandatory minimum sentence imposed under the Habitual Offender Law is constitutional.
State v. Davis 792 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
15:529.1; State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98)
State v. Cushinello 792 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
and more recently, in State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that a mandatory minimum sentence under the Habitual Offender Law may still be reviewed for constitutional excessiveness.
State v. Flagg 792 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; (La.
State v. Washington 793 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Webster, 98-0807, p. 3 (La.App.
State v. Washington 793 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Webster, 98-0807, p. 3 (La.App.
State v. Dickerson 792 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Marino 804 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Brown 788 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Neal, 00-41 (La.
State v. Baudier 789 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Webster, 98-0807, p. 3 (La.App.
State v. Lovick 788 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
See also State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-8 (La.3/4/98), -77 .
State v. Allen 794 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Webster, 98-0807, p. 3 (La.App.
State v. Williams 788 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), ; -81 (La.
State v. Ormond 786 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98)
State v. Davis 786 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; (La.
State v. Dyer 794 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98)
State v. Howard 786 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; (La.
State v. Harris 787 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), .
State ex rel. D.L.S. 788 So. 2d 1197 La. 2001
State v. Lindsey, 99-3302 (La.10/17/00), ; State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98)
State v. Winding 787 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Lindsey, 99-3256, 99-3302 (La.10/17/00), ; State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Williams 786 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Armstrong, 99-925 (La.App.
State v. Hebert 787 So. 2d 1041 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
4 Cir. 3/15/00) , ; State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Gay 784 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Washington 788 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Webster, 98-0807, p. 3 (La.App.
State v. Washington 788 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Webster, 98-0807, p. 3 (La.App.
State v. Robichaux 788 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Flowers 782 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Citing State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , and State v. Young, 94-1636 (La.App.
State v. Lowery 781 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; (La.
State v. Carter 782 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
the defendant argues that his burden of proof is unduly heavy in that he must rebut the presumption that the mandatory minimum sentence is constitutional.
State v. Harrison 782 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Citing State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , and State v. Young, 94-1636 (La.App.
State v. Spencer 808 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Defendant also argues that State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , erroneously establishes a presumption that the mandatory minimum sentence is constitutional and erroneously holds that the burden is on defendant to rebut this presumption and to prove that the sentence is excessive.
State v. Bartley 782 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Armstrong, 99-925 (La.App.
State v. Algere 780 So. 2d 1131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Webster, 98-0807, p. 3 (La.App.
State v. Rodriguez 781 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Chairs 780 So. 2d 1088 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 7-8 (La.3/4/98), ; -81 (La.
State v. Briscoe 779 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), ; -81 (La.
State v. English 774 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.03/04/98), .
State v. Smith 777 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), ; -81 (La.
State v. Webster 775 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
In State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , the Supreme Court set out guidelines for when and under what circumstances a court should exercise its discretion to declare excessive a minimum sentence mandated by the Habitual Offender Law.
State v. Schleve 775 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Moreover, the trial court did not articulate a basis for departing downward from the minimum sentence under the Habitual Offender Law, as required by State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Randall 776 So. 2d 424 La. 2000
Although fully aware of his discretion to impose in exceptional cases a sentence less than the mandatory minimum term provided by the legislature, see State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , the trial judge expressly adhered to the legislative mandate in this case on *425 grounds that the defendant's present conviction is his second for a crime of violence, as defined by La.R.S.
State v. Payne 777 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98)
State v. Simmons 779 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 5-6 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Clark 780 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
See State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98); ; (1993); (1976).
State v. Jason 779 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
However, as our Supreme Court explained in State v. Walter Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , "it is not the role of the sentencing court to question the wisdom of the Legislature in requiring enhanced punishments for multiple offenders."
State v. Bryant 775 So. 2d 596 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.03/04/98), ; State v. Bush, 31,710 (La.
State v. Nelson 775 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
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. Crowell 773 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Martin 788 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Burton, 98-0096, pp. 6-7 (La.App.