Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. HB, 955 So. 2d 255.

23 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Larry J. Cooper, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Jermon James La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Harrison Buckner Doyle La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
3 Cir. 4/4/07), where this court stated, “Review of the jurisprudence shows that different victims, places, or dates mean different transactions and different schemes or plans.” Id.
State of Louisiana v. Kenyon L. Dunams La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
App. 3 Cir. 4/4/07), State v. 13 Dagenhart, 39,874 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Eric Wayne Lemay La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
3 Cir. 4/4/07), where this court stated, “Review of the jurisprudence shows that different victims, places, or dates mean different transactions and different schemes or plans.” Hence, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing consecuti
State of Louisiana v. Austin William Bost La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
3 Cir. 4/4/07), where this court stated, “Review of the jurisprudence shows that different victims, places, or dates mean different transactions and different schemes or plans.” Additionally, the sentences imposed were in the mid-range, far below the maximum ninety-nine-year sentences that could have been imposed by th
State of Louisiana v. Isame Henry Faciane A/K/A Isame Faciance La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
3 Cir. 4/4/07), where this court stated, “Review of the jurisprudence shows that different victims, places, or dates mean different transactions and different schemes or plans.” Additionally, in State v. Roy, 15-516, pp. 11-12 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Nicholas James Faciane -Aka- Nicholas Faciane La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
3 Cir. 4/4/07), stated, “Review of the jurisprudence shows that different victims, places, or dates mean different transactions and different schemes or plans.” Additionally, this court has stated the following: In State v. Thibodeaux, 05–1187 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Justin Seawright La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Travis R. McKee La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Steven Blunt AKA Steven L. Blunt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 04/04/07); (quoting State v. Thibodeaux, 04-1166, p. 5 (La.App.
State v. Blunt 201 So. 3d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 04/04/07) ; (quoting State v. Thibodeaux, 04-1166, p. 5 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Barry G. Roy AKA - Barry Roy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
3 Cir. 4/4/07), where this court stated, “Review of the jurisprudence shows that different victims, places, or dates mean different transactions and different schemes or plans.” Hence, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences in the present case.
State v. Roy 177 So. 3d 1112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
3 Cir. 4/4/07), , where this court stated, “Review of the jurisprudence shows that different victims, places, or dates mean different transactions and different schemes or plans.” Hence, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences in the present case.
Brown v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections 169 So. 3d 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
1st Cir.3/21/14), 2014 WL 1165861 , at *2 (unpublished); State v. H. B., 2006-1436 (La.App.3d Cir.4/4/07), ; State v. Dagenhart, 39,874 (La.App.2d Cir.8/17/05), , writ denied, 2005-2421 (La.4/24/06), .
State of Louisiana v. Walter Urena La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 4/4/07), (wherein this court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences where ―each of the three charged offenses all had separate victims and that the abuse forming the basis of the charge happened on at least three different dates and time periods‖).
State v. Urena 161 So. 3d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 4/4/07), (wherein this court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences where “each of the three charged offenses all had separate victims and that the abuse forming the basis of the charge happened on at least three different dates and time periods”).
State of Louisiana v. Jeffrey Billy Sepulvado La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 4/4/07), State v. Davis, 06-922 (La.App.
State v. Sepulvado 134 So. 3d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 4/4/07) , ; State v. Davis, 06-922 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Jerald C. Fowler La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 4/4/07), the defendant challenged the imposition of three consecutive terms of ten years at hard labor on his three convictions of second-degree sexual battery.
State v. Fowler 114 So. 3d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 4/4/07) , , the defendant challenged the imposition of three consecutive terms of ten years at hard labor on his three convictions of second-degree sexual battery.
State of Louisiana v. J.M. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
3 Cir. 4/4/07), (wherein this court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences where “each of the three charged offenses all had separate victims and that the abuse forming the basis of the charge happened on at least three different dates and time periods”).
State v. J.M. 968 So. 2d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
3 Cir. 4/4/07), (wherein this court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences where “each of the three charged offenses all had separate victims and that the abuse forming the basis of the charge happened on at least three different dates and time periods”).