Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Anderson, 753 So. 2d 321.

27 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Jeremy Dillion La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2026
App. 4 Cir. 1/26/00), ).
State of Louisiana v. Orlando Brown La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
App. 4 Cir. 1/26/00), 8 Decree For the reasons provided herein, we affirm Defendant’s convictions, vacate Defendant’s sentences, and remand for the trial court to rule on Defendant’s motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal and for resentencing.
State of Louisiana Versus Mishanda L Reed La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State v. Brazell 245 So. 3d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Cavalier 171 So. 3d 1117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 1/26/00), , this Court noted that .the trial court’s *1130 failure to rule on the defendant’s timely-filed motions for new trial, post-verdict judgment of acquittal, and in arrest of | adjudgment until after sentencing constituted an error patent.
State v. Hackett 122 So. 3d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 1/26/00), , in which an appellant argued that fingerprints found on the bill of information were unusable for purposes of identification; 4 and State v. Langlois, 96-0084, p. 6 (La.App.
State v. Lomax 81 So. 3d 788 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Proctor 80 So. 3d 527 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
State v. Causey 67 So. 3d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
4 Cir. 1/26/00) , , the defendant argued that because the fingerprints on the bill of information for a forgery conviction were not suitable for identification, the State failed to meet its burden.
State v. Andrews 61 So. 3d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
4 Cir. 1/26/00) , , this court noted as an error patent that the trial court had failed to rule on the defendant’s timely-filed motions for new trial, post-verdict judgment of acquittal, and in arrest of judgment until after sentencing.
State v. Smith 913 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
State v. Norwood 802 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Davis 792 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Williams 788 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Harris 787 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Allen 788 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
4 Cir. 1/26/00), ; State v. Isaac, 98-0182, p. 7 (La.App.
State v. Jackson 814 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
4th Cir.1/26/00), ; (La.App.
State v. Powell 779 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
4 Cir. 1/26/2000) , , the defendant argued that because the fingerprints on the bill of information for a forgery conviction were not suitable for identification, the State failed to meet its burden.
State v. Smith 777 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
4 Cir. 1/26/00) , , the fingerprints on the bill of information of a predicate conviction were not suitable for identification; however, the fingerprints on the arrest register matched those of the defendant.
State v. Carter 773 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Melbert 776 So. 2d 499 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
4 Cir. 1/26/00) ; ; State v. Jackson, 95-423 (La.App.
State v. Hall 775 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
4 Cir. 1/26/00), n. 1 ; State v. Randle, 98-1670, p. 2, n. 1 (La.
State v. Bullock 767 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
4 Cir. 1/26/2000), , citing State ex rel.
State v. Hayden 767 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
4 Cir. 1/26/2000) ; , the defendant *745 argued that since the fingerprints of the bill of information for a forgery conviction were not suitable for identification, the State failed to meet its burden.
State v. Milton 764 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
4 Cir. 1/26/2000), , citing State ex rel.
State v. Gray 764 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Lee 764 So. 2d 1122 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
4th Cir.1/26/00), , the fingerprints on the bill of information of a predicate conviction were not suitable for identification; however, the fingerprints on the arrest register matched those of the defendant.