Cited by

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

796 citing documents.

State v. Robinson 106 So. 3d 1028 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
and State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , the supreme court addressed the issue of mandatory sentences in the context of the habitual offender law.
State v. Bruce 102 So. 3d 1029 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Dee 103 So. 3d 1153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State of Louisiana v. Dietrich Jamal Thibodeaux AKA Dietrich Thibodeaux AKA Dietrich J. Thibodeaux Etc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
endant that he is “exceptional, which in this context means that 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.” State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 8 (La.3/4/98), (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); -81 (La.1993) (holding that a trial court must reduce a defendant’s sentence to one not constitutionally excessive if the t
State v. Thibodeaux 100 So. 3d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
ies provided by the legislature for an offense upon a showing by the defendant that he is “exceptional, which in this context means that 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.” State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 8 (La.3/4/98), (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); -81 (La.1993) (holding that a trial court must redu
State of Louisiana v. Michael W. Hood La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
“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. Smith 105 So. 3d 744 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.08/04/98)
State v. Williams 101 So. 3d 104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Landry, supra at 1239-1240 , citing State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Johnson 103 So. 3d 542 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Jones 103 So. 3d 420 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Johnson, 1997-1906 (La.03/04/98), ; State v. Gay, supra.
State v. Celestine 92 So. 3d 335 La. 2012
On the other hand, a majority on the court of appeal panel, taking into account that defendant admitted committing the offense but that he was otherwise an “exemplary citizen,” who suffered from “bouts of deep depression,” and further considering the standard established by this Court’s decisions in State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), for determining when a trial court may depart from the mandatory minimum sentence specified by the legislature for an offense, concluded that defendant “has cle
State v. Leday 97 So. 3d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
He is subjected to a longer sentence because he continues to break the law.” State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State of Louisiana v. Taurean Jackson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
3/4/98), the court explained, in pertinent part: Since the Habitual Offender Law in its entirety is constitutional, the minimum sentences it imposes upon multiple offenders are also presumed to be constitutional.
State v. Jackson 92 So. 3d 1243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Additionally, in State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , the court explained, in pertinent part: Since the Habitual Offender Law in its entirety is constitutional, the minimum sentences it imposes upon multiple offenders are also presumed to be constitutional.
State of Louisiana v. K.W. T. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
3/4/98), (citations omitted).
State v. Cavazos 94 So. 3d 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Lawrence 91 So. 3d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State of Louisiana v. Alfonzo Jewade Segura La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
nt‟ or that the sentence amounted to nothing more than „the purposeful imposition of pain and suffering‟ and is „grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime,‟ he has the option, indeed the duty, to reduce such sentence to one that would not be constitutionally excessive.” In State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), the trial court deviated from the habitual offender sentencing provisions and sentenced a fourth felony offender to thirty months at hard labor instead of the mandatory twent
State v. Authier 92 So. 3d 494 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
In State v. Dorthey, supra, and State v. *508 Johnson, 1997-1906 (La.3/4/98), , the supreme court addressed the issue of mandatory sentences in the context' of the habitual offender law.
State v. Dorsey 94 So. 3d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Taylor , 06-839 at 4, 956 So.2d at 28 (citing State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ).
State v. Paul 90 So. 3d 1191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Johnson 91 So. 3d 1213 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
1993), and State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , the supreme court addressed the issue of mandatory sentences in the context of the habitual offender law.
State v. Williams 85 So. 3d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
19nSee also State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Baxley, 94-2982 (La.5/22/95), ; State v. Nix, 2007-1431 (La.App.
State v. Fontenot 87 So. 3d 154 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
App. 4 Cir. 3/31/04), -1240 , citing State v. Johnson, 97-1906 pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Horne 88 So. 3d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
5 Cir. 12/26/01), , writ denied, 02-0466 (La.2/7/03), citing State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Funes 88 So. 3d 490 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 7 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Buckley 88 So. 3d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Landry, 871 So.2d at 1239-1240 , citing State v. Johnson, 971906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Mosley 80 So. 3d 1164 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
incing evidence” to rebut the presumption of constitutionality, which requires a showing that she is exceptional, ie., “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 ease.” State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , quoting State v. Young, 94-1636 (La.App.4th Cir.10/26/95), , writ denied, 95-3010 (La.3/22/96), (P
State v. Jones 81 So. 3d 236 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
ce” to rebut the presumption of constitutionality, which requires a showing that the defendant is exceptional, in 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 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Small, supra.
State v. Robinson 79 So. 3d 1270 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Gay, 34,371 (La.App.2d Cir.4/4/01), .
State v. Barnes 92 So. 3d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
He is subjected to a longer sentence because he continues to break the law.” State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State of Louisiana v. v. L. G. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
This court stated the following: In State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 9 (La.3/4/98), the supreme court explained: We emphasize to sentencing judges that departures downward from the minimum sentence .
State of Louisiana v. Brandon Dale Allen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Allen 79 So. 3d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 8 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Lomax 81 So. 3d 788 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Small 78 So. 3d 825 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.03/04/98), , quoting State v. Young, 94-1636 (La.App.
State v. Proctor 80 So. 3d 527 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Jones 76 So. 3d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Dowell 75 So. 3d 967 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
art. 882(A)(“An illegal sentence may be corrected at any time by the court that imposed the sentence or by an appellate court on review.”) The State also cites State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , for the proposition that “at any time” as used in La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Green 84 So. 3d 573 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Caldwell 74 So. 3d 248 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Later, in State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , the supreme court specified that “[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 [the] presumption of constitutionality.” The supreme court further emphasized that “departures downward from the minimum sen
State v. Wade 77 So. 3d 275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Martin 72 So. 3d 928 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Wallace 71 So. 3d 1142 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Wade, 36,295 (La.App.2d Cir.10/23/02), , writ denied, 2002-2875 (La.4/4/03), .
State v. Landfair 70 So. 3d 1061 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), ; -81 (La.1993).
State v. Cummings 71 So. 3d 482 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson, 1997-1906 (La.03/04/98), .
State v. Scoggins 70 So. 3d 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), .
State of Louisiana v. Travis Bourda La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
“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. BOURDA 70 So. 3d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
“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. Jacobs 67 So. 3d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 7 (La.3/4/98), .