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. Dubroc, 755 So. 2d 297.

40 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Ke'undra Mekel Walker La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
  • State of Louisiana v. Jermaine Washington, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
  • State of Louisiana v. Michael Andre Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    3 Cir. 12/15/99), “The law does not require that the intent to kill be of a specific victim, but only that the defendant had the intent to kill someone.” Having already found that there was sufficient evidence to find that the State disproved Defendant’s claim of self-defense, the doctrine of transferred intent means t
  • State of Louisiana v. Jason Wright La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    3 Cir. 12/15/99), “The law does not require that the intent to kill be of a specific victim, but only that the defendant had the intent to kill someone.” This assignment of error also lacks merit.
  • State of Louisiana v. Leonard Ingram La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    3 Cir. 12/15/99), this court discussed the review of excessive sentence claims, stating: The relevant question on review of a sentence is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion and not whether the sentence imposed may appear harsh or whether another sentence might be more a
  • State v. Ingram 181 So. 3d 945 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    3 Cir. 12/15/99), , this court discussed the review of excessive sentence claims, stating: The relevant question on review of a sentence is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion and not whether the sentence imposed may appear harsh or whether another sentence might be more appropriate.
  • State v. Rouser 158 So. 3d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    3 Cir. 12/15/99) , (twelve-year sentence for attempted manslaughter and three-year sentence for aggravated battery, to be served consecutively, not excessive even though imposed on forty-five-year-old first offender who was married, a father and grandfather, and had always been gainfully employed).
  • State of Louisiana v. Lantibious A. Broussard AKA Lantipious A. Broussard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    3 Cir. 12/15/99), ( (La.App.
  • State in the Interest of N. F. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    3 Cir. 12/15/99), -09 (citing State v. Trahan, 93-1116 (La.App.
  • State ex rel. N.F. 124 So. 3d 1262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    3 Cir. 12/15/99), -09 (citing State v. Trahan, 93-1116 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Gregory Burnett Collier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Collier 161 So. 3d 653 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Boudreaux 98 So. 3d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    3 Cir. 12/15/99) , , a case cited by the State, the defendant was sentenced to twelve years at hard labor for attempted manslaughter and three years at hard labor for aggravated battery, to be served consecutively, for a total term of imprisonment of fifteen years.
  • State of Louisiana v. Thomas Herbert La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    3 Cir. 12/15/99), this court discussed the review of excessive sentence claims, stating: The relevant question on review of a sentence is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion and not whether the sentence imposed may appear harsh or whether another sentence might be more ap
  • State of Louisiana v. David Lynn Saucier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 12/15/99); noted: The relevant question on review of a sentence is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion and not whether the sentence imposed may appear harsh or whether another sentenc
  • State v. Saucier 81 So. 3d 691 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 12/15/99); , noted: The relevant question on review of a sentence is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion and not whether the sentence imposed may appear harsh or whether another sentence might be more appropriate.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jeffery Neal Deville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 12/15/99); noted: The relevant question on review of a sentence is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion and not whether the sentence imposed may appear harsh or whether another
  • State v. DEVILLE 74 So. 3d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 12/15/99); , noted: The relevant question on review of a sentence is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion and not whether the sentence imposed may appear harsh or whether another sentence might be more appropriate.
  • State of Louisiana v. Brian Keith Guilbeau La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 12/15/99); noted: The relevant question on review of a sentence is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion and not whether the sentence imposed may appear harsh or whether another sentence might be more appropriate.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jamie Francisco La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 12/15/99); noted: The relevant question on review of a sentence is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion and not whether the sentence imposed may appear harsh or whether another sentence might be
  • State v. Francisco 55 So. 3d 995 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 12/15/99); , noted: The relevant question on review of a sentence is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion and not whether the sentence imposed may appear harsh or whether another sentence might be more appropriate.
  • State v. Francis 30 So. 3d 1187 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State of Louisiana v. Jasmine Francis AKA- Jass Faulk La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Strother 25 So. 3d 253 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    3 Cir. 12/15/99); , noted: The relevant question on review of a sentence is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion and not whether the sentence imposed may appear harsh or whether another sentence might be more appropriate.
  • State of Louisiana v. Wilburn Strother La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    3 Cir. 12/15/99); noted: The relevant question on review of a sentence is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion and not whether the sentence imposed may appear harsh or whether another sentence might be more appropriate.
  • State of Louisiana v. Randall C. Curtis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    3 Cir. 12/15/99); noted: The relevant question on review of a sentence is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion and not whether 12 the sentence imposed may appear harsh or
  • State v. Curtis 987 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    3 Cir. 12/15/99); , noted: The relevant question on review of a sentence is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion and not whether hsthe sentence imposed may appear harsh or whether another sentence might be more appropriate.
  • State of Louisiana v. Willard Brandenburg La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    3 Cir. 12/15/99); noted: The relevant question on review of a sentence is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion and not whether the sentence imposed may appear harsh or whether another sentence might be more appropriate.
  • State v. Brandenburg 949 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    3 Cir. 12/15/99); , noted: The relevant question on review of a sentence is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion and not whether the sentence imposed may appear harsh or whether another sentence might be more appropriate.
  • State v. Corkern 897 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    3 Cir. 12/15/99), -304 .
  • State v. Day 838 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • State v. Willis 823 So. 2d 1072 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    3 Cir. 12/15/99) , ; State v. Boyd, 95-1248 (La.App.
  • State v. Logan 822 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Richard 807 So. 2d 1129 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    3 Cir. 12/15/99) , , the defendant was convicted of attempted manslaughter and aggravated battery and was sentenced to twelve years for attempted manslaughter and three years for aggravated battery to be served consecutively.
  • State v. Graves 798 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    App. 3 Cir. 12/15/99); .
  • State v. Boudreaux 782 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    3 Cir. 12/15/99); , noted: The relevant question on review of a sentence is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion and not whether the sentence imposed may appear harsh or whether another sentence might be more appropriate.
  • State v. Price 780 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    App. 3 Cir.12/15/99), , this court held: To constitute an excessive sentence, this court must find the penalty imposed is so grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime as to shock our sense of justice or that the sentence makes no measurable contribution to acceptable penal goals; and, therefore, it is nothing more than nee
  • State v. Derouin 778 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    3 Cir. 12/15/99) ; , this court held: To constitute an excessive sentence, this court must find the penalty imposed is so grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime as to shock our sense of justice or that the sentence makes no measurable contribution to acceptable penal goals; and, therefore, it is nothing more than nee
  • State v. Callegari 773 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    3 Cir. 12/15/99); , this court stated: To constitute an excessive sentence, this court must find the penalty imposed is so grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime as to shock our sense of justice or that the sentence makes no measurable contribution to acceptable penal goals; and, therefore, it is nothing more than n
  • State v. Schmidt 771 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000