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 of Louisiana v. Sherman D. Sharp La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    3/4/98), (quoting Judge Plotkin’s concurring opinion in State v. Young, 94-1636, pp. 5-6 (La.App.
  • State v. Lavy 142 So. 3d 1000 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    1 In State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , the Louisiana Supreme Court re-examined the issue of when Dor-they permits a downward departure from the mandatory minimum sentences in the Habitual Offender Law.
  • State v. Laneheart 135 So. 3d 1221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98)
  • State v. Mandigo 136 So. 3d 292 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    In State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , the supreme court held that a defendant who is seeking to rebut the presumption that a mandatory minimum sentence under the Habitual Offender Law is constitutional must clearly and convincingly show that he is "exceptional, which in this context means that because of unusual circumstances this defendant is a victim
  • State of Louisiana v. Jamaal Cole Diggs La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    3/4/98), (quoting Judge Plotkin’s concurring opinion in State v. Young, 94-1636, pp. 5-6 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Fermichael Harrison La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    “A court may only depart from the minimum sentence if it finds that there is clear and convincing evidence in the particular case before it which would rebut this presumption of constitutionality.” State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 7 (La.3/4/98)
  • State v. Diggs 154 So. 3d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    because of unusual circumstances [he] 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.3/4/98), (quoting Judge Plotkin’s concurring opinion in State v. Young, 94-1636, pp. 5-6 (La.App.
  • State v. Thomas 136 So. 3d 153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    sentence *156 if it finds that there is clear and convincing evidence in the particular case before it which would rebut [the] presumption of constitutionality’ and emphasized that ‘departures downward from the minimum sentence under the Habitual Offender Law should occur only in rare situations.’ ” Lindsey, 99-3802, 99-3256 p. 5, 770 So.2d at 343, quoting State v. Johnson, 97-1906, (La.3/4/98), -77 .
  • State v. Noble 133 So. 3d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Thus, the defendant asserts that his circumstances are exceptional, meeting the *706 criteria set forth in State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 7 (La.3/4/98), , 676 and makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment.
  • State v. Tassin 129 So. 3d 1235 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
    that the mandatory minimum is constitutional, the defendant must show that: “[he] is exceptional, which in this context means that because of unusual circumstances this defendant is a victim of the legislature’s failure to assign sentences that are meaningfully 14Stailored to the culpability of the offender, the gravity of the offense and the circumstances.” State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Royal, 857 So.2d at 1174 .
  • State of Louisiana v. Justin Robert Sizemore La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Sizemore 129 So. 3d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    3 Cir. 6/5/13) , (citing State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Nelson Chambers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    3/4/98), (quoting State v. Young, 94-1636 (La.App.
  • Explained State of Louisiana v. Derrick L. Harris La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    3/4/98), the Louisiana Supreme Court has repeatedly found the habitual offender law of La.R.S.
  • State v. Harris 156 So. 3d 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    In State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 8 (La.03/04/98), , (La.App.
  • State v. Norah 131 So. 3d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    e afforded deference by the judiciary, courts may still deviate below the mandatory minimum sentence when “there is clear and convincing evidence in the particular case before it which would rebut [the] presumption of constitutionality [of the sentencing scheme of the statute that forms the basis of sentencing as applied to this particular defendant].” State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 7 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Pernell 127 So. 3d 18 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    1979), and State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Hamdalla 126 So. 3d 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Cf. State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Wills 125 So. 3d 509 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.03/04/98), .
  • State v. Hollins 123 So. 3d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Sims 123 So. 3d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    y constitutional), a sentence mandated by the statute may still be unconstitutionally excessive if it “makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment, or is nothing more than the purposeful imposition of pain and suffering and is grossly 19out of proportion to the severity of the crime.” Landfair , p. 17, 70 So.3d at 1072 (citing State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), , 677 -81 (La.1993)).
  • State v. Quinn 123 So. 3d 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “[C]ourts have the power to declare a sentence excessive under Article I, Section 20 of the Louisiana Constitution, although it falls within the statutory limits provided by the Legislature.” State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 6 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Hackett 122 So. 3d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    4 Cir. 11/10/98) , , (which cites State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , arguing that this court has recognized that “the classification of a defendant’s instant or prior offenses as nonviolent should not be discounted ...).” 11 | ^The state asserts that a sentence of twenty years at hard labor under the circumstances of this offense and for this offender does not violate the Eighth
  • State v. York 121 So. 3d 1226 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    |27In State v. Dorthey, supra, and State v. Johnson, 1997-1906 (La.3/4/98), , the supreme court addressed *1241 the issue of mandatory sentences in the context of the habitual offender law.
  • State of Louisiana v. Bill Eric Winters La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Winters 118 So. 3d 104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906, (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Mills 120 So. 3d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98)
  • State v. Richards 114 So. 3d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “A court may only depart from the *642 minimum sentence if it finds that there is clear and convincing evidence in the particular case before it which would rebut this presumption of constitutionality.” State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 7 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Aaron Orlando Richards La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    “A court may only depart from the minimum sentence if it finds that there is clear and convincing evidence in the particular case before it which would rebut this presumption of constitutionality.” State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 7 (La.3/4/98)
  • State of Louisiana v. Jamario Kato La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Kato 157 So. 3d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 8 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Tatten 116 So. 3d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Landry, 03-1671, p. 8, 871 So.2d at 1239-1240 , citing State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Veal 116 So. 3d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    See also State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Baxley, 94-2982 (La.5/22/95), ; Williams; State v. Batiste, 2006-0875 (La.
  • State v. Slattery 116 So. 3d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    See also State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Baxley, 94-2982 (La.5/22/95), ; State v. Batiste, 2006-0875 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Simcoe Cole AKA Simco W. Cole La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    3/4/98), -77, the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed downward departures as follows: In State v. Dorthey, supra, [] this Court held that a trial court must reduce a defendant‟s sentence to one not constitutionally excessive if the trial court finds that the sentence m
  • State v. Cole 156 So. 3d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    In State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-9 (La.3/4/98), -77 , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed downward departures as follows: In State v. Dorthey, supra, [ ] this Court held that a trial court must reduce a defendant’s sentence to one not constitutionally excessive if the trial court finds that the sentence mandated by the Habitual Offend
  • State v. Noble 114 So. 3d 500 La. 2013
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 9 (La.3/4/98), -77 .
  • STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS HAROLD OZENE A/K/A JAMIE OZENE A/K/A HAROLD J. BOOTE A/K/A HAROLD J. OZENE A/K/A … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    3/4/98), explained the circumstances under which such a departure might occur: A court may only depart from the minimum sentence if it finds that there is clear and convincing evidence in the particular case before it which would rebut this presumption of constitutionality.
  • State v. Parker 113 So. 3d 471 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.03/04/98), ; State v. Hill, 42,025 (La.App.2d Cir.05/09/07), ; State v. Chandler, 41,063 (La.App.2d Cir.09/08/06), .
  • State v. Jackson 112 So. 3d 1046 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Thomas, supra.
  • State v. Parker 112 So. 3d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Brown 157 So. 3d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Lewis 110 So. 3d 644 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    and State v. Johnson, 97-1906 *655 (La.3/4/98), , the supreme court addressed the issue of mandatory sentences in the context of the habitual offender law.
  • State of Louisiana v. Wayne Kevin Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    State v. Johnson, [97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ], 675
  • State v. Jones 107 So. 3d 861 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Johnson, [97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ], 675
  • State v. Burks 108 So. 3d 820 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Gay, 34,371 (La.App.2d Cir.4/4/01), .
  • State v. Robinson 108 So. 3d 830 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    and State v. Johnson, 1997-1906 (La.3/4/98), , the supreme court addressed the issue of mandatory sentences in the context.
  • State v. Shaw 108 So. 3d 1189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    While a court has the authority to depart from a legislatively-mandated sentence, “the Legislature’s determination of an appropriate minimum sentence should be afforded great deference by the judiciary.” State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Sam 105 So. 3d 988 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.03/04/98), .
  • State v. Thompson 135 So. 3d 663 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .