Cited by

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

796 citing documents.

State v. Lewis 69 So. 3d 604 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Gay, 84,371 (La.App.2d Cir.4/4/01), .
State of Louisiana v. Carol Wayne Crooks, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Jarman Gerard Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
3/4/98), ] where we set out guidelines for when and under what circumstances courts should exercise their discretion under Dorthey to declare excessive a minimum sentence mandated by the Habitual Offender Law.
State v. Jones 63 So. 3d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
This effort culminated in [State v.] Johnson, [97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ,] where we set out guidelines for when and under what circumstances courts should exercise their discretion *340 under Dorthey to declare excessive a minimum sentence mandated by the Habitual Offender Law.
State v. Hall 64 So. 3d 339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), ; -81 (La.1993).
State v. Wells 64 So. 3d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See also State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Baxley, 94-2982 (La.5/22/95), ; State v. Batiste, 06-0875 (La.App.
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS OTERREL J. BOUTTE AKA O'TERREL BOUTTE AKA O'TERRELL BOUTTE 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. Boutte 58 So. 3d 624 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. Phillips 61 So. 3d 130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), ; -81 (La.1993).
State v. White 58 So. 3d 493 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
See State v. Johnson, 1997-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Wade, 36,295 (La.App.2d Cir.10/23/02), , writ denied.
State v. Dukes 57 So. 3d 489 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
In State v. Johnson, 1997-1906 (La.3/4/98), , the Louisiana Supreme Court further qualified the Dorthey holding permitting a downward departure- from a mandatory minimum sentence in the context of the Habitual Offender Law.
State v. Cummings 57 So. 3d 499 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
See State v. Johnson, 1997-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Welch 57 So. 3d 442 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
He concludes that the sum of these facts proves that he is “exceptional,” 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. Lindsey, 99-3256 (La.10/17/00), .
State v. Stanfield 56 So. 3d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Winslow 55 So. 3d 910 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Johnson, 1997-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State of Louisiana v. Fred Ballard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
efendant 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
State v. Materre 53 So. 3d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.03/04/98), .
State v. Mueller 53 So. 3d 677 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Landry, 871 So.2d at 1239-1240 , citing State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Morrison 55 So. 3d 856 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
al. To do so, 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 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. Robbins, 43,240 (La.App.2d Cir.6/4/08), , writ denied, 08-1438 (La.2/20/09), ; State v. W
State of Louisiana v. C. S. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
3/4/98), the supreme court held: [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
State v. C.S. 50 So. 3d 983 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
In State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 8 (La.3/4/98), , the supreme court held: [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 victim of the legislature’s failure to assig
State v. Green 52 So. 3d 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), ; -81 (La.1993).
State v. Williams 54 So. 3d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
the mandatory minimum sentence is constitutional, a defendant must show, by clear and convincing evidence, 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.3/4/98), .
State v. Thomas 54 So. 3d 688 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 7 (La.3/4/98); .
State v. Horn 55 So. 3d 100 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
mption of constitutionality, which requires a showing 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 [a sentence that is] meaningfully tailored to the culpability of the offender, the gravity of the offense, and the circumstances of the *115 case.” State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Declouet 52 So. 3d 89 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
5 Cir. 2/23/04) , , writ denied, 04-0955 (La.10/1/04), (citing State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Cushinello, 01-109 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Steven Mark Marc" Anderson " La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Anderson 48 So. 3d 1202 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
|9 State v. Johnson, [97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ,] 675
State v. Fernandez 50 So. 3d 219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
See also State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Batiste, 2006-0875 (La.App.
State v. Turner 50 So. 3d 836 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Landry, 871 So.2d at 1239-1240 , citing State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Marshall 47 So. 3d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Wade, 36,295 (La.App.2d Cir.10/23/02), , writ denied, 02-2875 (La.4/4/03), .
State v. Lawrence 47 So. 3d 1003 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Johnson, 97-1907, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Jones 46 So. 3d 756 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
In State v. Dorthey, supra, and State v. 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. Johnson 44 So. 3d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Landry, supra, 03-1671, p. 8 , 871 So.2d at 1239 , citing State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Jenkins 45 So. 3d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
See also State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ; State v. Baxley, 94-2982 (La.5/22/95), ; State v. Batiste, 06-0875 (La.App.
State v. Johnson 41 So. 3d 1188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), .
State of Louisiana v. Marcus Quinn, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Quinn 38 So. 3d 1102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Johnson, [97-1906 (La.3/4/98), ] at 675; *1115 (La.1993)
State v. Harrell 40 So. 3d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
mandated by the Habitual Offender Law makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment or that the sentence amounts to nothing more than the purposeful imposition of pain and suffering and is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime, he is duty bound to reduce the sentence to one that would not be constitutionally excessive); State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), (holding that to rebut the presumption that an habitual offender sentence was constitutional, the def
State of Louisiana v. R. R. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
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 twenty years.
State v. RR 37 So. 3d 501 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
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 twenty years.
State v. R.R. 37 So. 3d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
15:529.1 makes no ‘measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment’ 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 f
State v. CASSIMERE 34 So. 3d 954 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-7 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Collins 35 So. 3d 1103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
In State v. Johnson, 97-1906 (La.3/4/98), , the Louisiana Supreme Court reexamined the issue of when Dorthey permits a downward departure from a mandatory minimum sentence, albeit in the context of the Habitual Offender Law.
State v. Conner 30 So. 3d 1132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 5-6 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Montgomery 31 So. 3d 560 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
The court stated that “[t]he goal is to deter and punish recidivism by punishing more harshly those who commit the most crimes.” State v. Shaw, 969 So.2d at 1244 ; State v. Johnson, 97-1906, (La.03/04/98), .
State v. Allen 30 So. 3d 1024 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
See State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 8 (La.3/4/98), .
State v. Lofton 25 So. 3d 252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Negron 25 So. 3d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
3/4/98), , which established the defendant's burden in determining whether the trial court properly imposed, under State v. Dorthey, 623 So.
State v. Sopczak 25 So. 3d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009