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. Sanders, 542 So. 2d 1134.

17 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Joshua X. Griffin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
  • State v. Griffin 217 So. 3d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • State of Louisiana v. Christopher B. Miller La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Miller 114 So. 3d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State of Louisiana v. Albert Vernon Robertson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS OTERREL J. BOUTTE AKA O'TERREL BOUTTE AKA O'TERRELL BOUTTE La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    In support of its argument, the state 3 (La.App.
  • State v. Boutte 58 So. 3d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    In support of its argument, the state 14 (La.App.
  • State v. Parker 853 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    1 Cir.1992) (holding that 20 years was not excessive for second felony offender convicted of simple burglary), writ granted in part and denied in part, (requiring an "articulated justification for the near-maximum sentence"); (La.App.
  • State v. White 704 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    1 Cir.1992) (holding that twenty years was not excessive for second felony offender convicted of simple burglary), writ granted in 6part and denied in part, (requiring an “articulated justification for the near-maximum sentence”); (La.App.
  • State v. Green 683 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • Criticized State v. Webster 664 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Gaines 639 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • State v. Wilson 635 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    tions, and the time of the commission of the last felony for which he has been convicted....” Louisiana law is well established that: “When determining the expiration of a given sentence for the purposes of the Habitual Offender Statute, it is not the sentence imposed which governs, but the date of the person’s actual discharge from supervision by the Department of Corrections.” (La.
  • State v. Gamberella 633 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • State v. Williams 609 So. 2d 993 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
    3rd Cir. 1989); (La.App.
  • State v. Ponder 607 So. 2d 857 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
  • State v. Brew 593 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992