Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite In re Lacobee, 831 So. 2d 835.

60 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Patricia Jefferson La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
11/1/02), -54, the court noted: As implemented in Louisiana, intellectual disability is a three-part condition shown by establishing: (1) sub-average intelligence and (2) significant impairment in several areas of adaptive skills that (3) manifested during the developmental stage.
State of Louisiana v. Dewayne Willie Watkins La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
11/1/02), State v. Cope, 48,739 (La.
State v. Robertson 239 So. 3d 268 La. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Asahel Harvin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Previously, and by way of example, in State v. Williams, 01–1650 (La.11/1/02), this Court noted that the United States Supreme Court left to the states the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction against execution of the intellectually disabled and further noted that Louisiana had not yet directly legislatively implemented Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304
State of Louisiana v. Adam Comeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Previously, and by way of example, in State v. Williams, 01–1650 (La.11/1/02), this Court noted that the United States Supreme Court left to the states the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction against execution of the intellectually disabled and further noted that Louisiana had not yet directly legislatively implemented Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304
State v. Harvin 239 So. 3d 907 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
11/1/02), , this Court noted that the United States Supreme Court left to the states the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction against execution of the intellectually disabled and further noted that Louisiana had not yet directly legislatively implemented Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304
State v. Comeaux 239 So. 3d 920 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
11/1/02), , this Court noted that the United States Supreme Court left to the states the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction against execution of the intellectually disabled and further noted that Louisiana had not yet directly legislatively implemented Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304
State of Louisiana v. Russell Rubin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Previously, and by way of example, in State v. Williams, 01-1650 (La.11/1/02), this Court noted that the United States Supreme Court left to the states the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction against execution of the intellectually disabled and further noted that Louisiana had not yet directly legislatively implemented Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304
State v. Chester 208 So. 3d 338 La. 2016
State v. Montgomery 194 So. 3d 606 La. 2016
Previously, and by way of example, in State v. Williams, 01-1650 (La.11/1/02), , this Court noted that the United States Supreme Court left to the states the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction against execution of the intellectually disabled and further noted that Louisiana had not yét directly legislatively implemented *609 Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S.
State v. Reeves 188 So. 3d 257 La. 2016
American Psyohiatrio Association.
State ex rel. Wearry v. Cain 161 So. 3d 620 La. 2015
112Under State v. Williams, 01-1650, p. 27 (La.11/01/02), , to establish mental retardation, a defendant must first show that he has significantly sub-average intelligence, as generally measured by standardized IQ tests.
Explained State v. Reeves 137 So. 3d 625 La. 2014
Instead, this Court found that the procedure to be followed to evaluate an Atkins exemption raised post-conviction was the same as explained in State v. Williams, 01-1650 (La.11/1/02), , and the Court reiterated that procedure in Dunn , 07-0878 at 6-7, 974 So.2d at 662 .
State v. Williams 137 So. 3d 832 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
1986) ("[Rjegardless of whether the defendant marshaled the same evidence earlier in support of an unsuccessful motion to suppress, and entirely independent of any question of voluntariness, a defendant’s case may stand or fall on his ability to convince the jury that the manner in which the confession was obtained casts doubts on its credibility.”); State v. Williams, 01-1650, p. 8 (La.11/1/02), (holding that the statutory rule of La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Shaffer 77 So. 3d 939 La. 2011
Cf. State v. Williams, 01-1650, pp. 32-33 (La.11/1/02), (adopting as an interim measure procedures for determining whether a capital defendant is mentally retarded and so exempt from capital punishment under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct.
State v. Dyer 77 So. 3d 928 La. 2011
Cf. State v. Williams, 01-1650, pp. 32-33 (La.11/1/02), (adopting as an interim measure procedures for determining whether a capital defendant is mentally retarded and so exempt from capital punishment under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct.
State v. Leason 77 So. 3d 933 La. 2011
Cf. State v. Williams, 01-1650, pp. 32-33 (La.11/1/02), (adopting as an interim measure procedures for determining whether a capital defendant is mentally retarded and so exempt from capital punishment under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), pending the legislature’s own response to the Atkins decision, see La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Bell 53 So. 3d 437 La. 2010
State v. Williams, 01-1650 (La.11/1/02), .
State v. Dressner 45 So. 3d 127 La. 2010
R]e-gardless of whether the defendant marshaled the same evidence earlier in support of an unsuccessful motion to suppress, and entirely independent of any question of voluntariness, a defendant’s case may stand or fall on his ability to convince the jury that the manner in which the confession was obtained casts doubt on its credibility.”); see also State v. Williams, 01-1650, p. 8 (La.11/1/02), , 843 32 (Statutory rule of La.Code Crim.
State v. Montejo 40 So. 3d 952 La. 2010
11/1/02), (citing Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689 , 106 S.Ct.
State v. Dunn 41 So. 3d 454 La. 2010
As such, several months after the Supreme Court issued Atkins , this court set forth the procedure to be followed by courts in Louisiana, in State v. Williams, 01-1650 (La.11/1/02), .
State of Louisiana v. Malcolm James Simon AKA Malcolm Simon AKA Malcolm J. Simon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
State v. Williams, 01-1650, p. 7 (La.11/1/02), -43.
State v. Williams 22 So. 3d 867 La. 2009
See also State v. Williams, 01-1650 (La.11/1/02), .
State v. Bordelon 33 So. 3d 842 La. 2009
at 1506 ; cf. State v. Dunn, 07-0878 (La.1/25/08), (retaining procedures set out in State v. Williams, 01-1650 (La.11/1/02), , including appointment of a sanity commissions, for resolving claims raised in a post-verdict, post-sentencing stage of a capital case that defendant is mentally retarded and so exempt from capital punishment under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Damon Broeske Frye La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
State v. Frye 999 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
State v. Holmes 5 So. 3d 42 La. 2008
6 (1986)("[R]egardless of whether the defendant marshaled the same evidence earlier in support of an unsuccessful motion to suppress, and entirely independent of any question of voluntariness, a defendant's *76 case may stand or fall on his ability to convince the jury that the manner in which the confession was obtained casts doubts on its credibility."); State v. Williams, 01-1650 (La.11/1/02), (holding that the statutory rule of La.Code Crim.
State v. Anderson 996 So. 2d 973 La. 2008
This Court addressed Atkins in State v. Williams, 01-1650, p. 27 (La.11/01/02), , and directed trial courts in post-Atkins hearings: (1) to order a pre-trial evidentiary hearing on the issue of mental retardation when the court has "reasonable grounds" to believe a defendant is mentally retarded, LSA-C.Cr.
State v. Campbell 983 So. 2d 810 La. 2008
State v. Dunn, XXXX-XXXX p. 1 (La.5/9/03), ; State v. Williams , XXXX-XXXX *825 p. 27 (La.11/1/02), .
State v. Dunn 974 So. 2d 658 La. 2008
On the same date that this Court remanded the Dunn case for a hearing to determine mental retardation, this Court issued its ruling in State v. Williams , XXXX-XXXX (La.11/1/02), .
State v. Lee 976 So. 2d 109 La. 2008
11/1/02), , and directed trial courts in post- Atkins hearings: 1) to order a pre-trial evidentiary hearing on the issue of mental retardation when the court has `reasonable grounds' to believe a defendant is mentally retarded, [La.C.Cr.P.]
State v. Blank 955 So. 2d 90 La. 2007
2146 ("[R]egardless of whether the defendant marshaled the same evidence earlier in support of an unsuccessful motion to suppress, and entirely independent of any question of voluntariness, a defendant's case may stand or fall on his ability to convince the jury that the manner in which the confession was obtained casts doubts on its credibility."); State v. Williams, 01-1650, p. 8 (La.11/1/02), (Statutory rule of La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Draughn 950 So. 2d 583 La. 2007
*635 In State v. Williams, XXXX-XXXX (La.11/1/02), , the defendant shot a pizza delivery person multiple times after demanding money.
State v. Turner 936 So. 2d 89 La. 2006
art. 905.5.1 was a significant departure from the procedure set forth by this Court in State v. Williams, 01-1650 (La.11/1/02), .
State v. King 935 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
486 , 112 L.Ed.2d 489 (1990); State v. Williams , XXXX-XXXX (La.11/1/02), .
State v. Williams 921 So. 2d 105 La. 2006
In State v. Williams, 01-1650 (La.11/1/02), , this Court affirmed relator's conviction for first degree murder but pretermitted *106 review of the penalty phase which resulted in a sentence of death and remanded the case to the district court for a "hearing on the sole issue of whether the defendant is mentally retarded," and therefore exempt from capital punis
State v. Scott 921 So. 2d 904 La. 2006
In Louisiana, this court implemented the Atkins mandate in State v. Williams, 01-1650 pp. 20-32 (La.11/1/02), -60 , relying on the definition of mental retardation in La.
State v. Brown 907 So. 2d 1 La. 2005
2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002) and this Court's decision in State v. Williams, 01-1650 (La.11/1/02), We find this assignment of error to be without merit, however, as defendant failed to present testimony during either the guilt or penalty phases of his trial sufficient to establish that he suffers from mental retardation.
State v. Higgins 898 So. 2d 1219 La. 2005
14:10(1); State v. Williams, 01-1650, p. 16 (La.11/1/02)
State v. Barbarin 900 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Williams, 01-1650 (La.11/1/02), .
State v. Manning 885 So. 2d 1044 La. 2004
This Court addressed Atkins in State v. Williams, 01-1650 (La.11/1/02), , and directed trial courts in post- Atkins hearings: 1) to order a pre-trial evidentiary hearing on the issue of mental retardation when the court has `reasonable grounds' to believe a defendant is mentally retarded, [La.C.Cr.P.]
State v. Housley 884 So. 2d 1204 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Williams, 01-1650 (La.11/1/02), .
State v. Severin 885 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Robinson, 02-1869, p. 4 (La.4/14/04), ; State v. Williams, 01-1650, p. 16 (La.11/1/02), .
State v. Jackson 880 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
[7] State v. Williams, 01-1650 (La.11/1/02), .
In re Lacobee 866 So. 2d 237 La. 2004
In re: Lacobee, 02-2597 (La.10/30/02), .
State ex rel. Bourque v. Cain 876 So. 2d 744 La. 2004
State v. Williams, 2001-1650 (La.11/1/02), ; see also State v. Dunn, 2001-1635 (La.11/1/02), .
State of Louisiana v. Brian Keith Poullard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
State v. Poullard 863 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
State v. Williams, 01-1650, p. 7 (La.11/1/02), -43 .
State of Louisiana v. Scott Allen Cooper La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
11/10/02), State v. Logan, 36,042 (La.App.
State v. Cooper 862 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Similarly, the cases of State v. [C.] Williams, 01-1650 (La.11/10/02), ; State v. Logan, 36,042 (La.App.