DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

60 citing documents.

  • State v. Terrick 857 So. 2d 1153 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    State v. Williams, 01-1650, p. 14 (La.11/01/02), .
  • State v. Carmouche 872 So. 2d 1020 La. 2003
    Edwards, 02-0514 (La.3/21/03), , quoting State v. Williams, 01-1650, p. 27 (La.11/1/02), (implementing Atkins ), it is not appropriate for this Court to address the merits at this time or to order an evidentiary hearing on the claim.
  • State v. Tate 851 So. 2d 921 La. 2003
    Pointing out that neither he nor the State had the benefit of Atkins at the time of the penalty phase, he argues that there is sufficient indication of mental retardation in the record to entitle him to a remand of the matter, as was done in State v. Williams, 01-1650 (La.11/1/02), , and State v. Dunn, 01-1635 (La.1/11/02), .
  • State v. Dunn 847 So. 2d 1183 La. 2003
    State v. Williams, 01-1650, p. 27 (La.11/1/02), .
  • State v. McLeod 843 So. 2d 1268 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    State v. Williams, 01-1650, p. 10 (La.11/1/02); , citing, State v. Cross, 93-1189 (La.6/30/95), .
  • State v. Price 842 So. 2d 491 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    State v. Williams, XXXX-XXXX, p. 9-15 (La.11/01/02), -848 .
  • State Ex Rel. Edwards v. Cain 841 So. 2d 768 La. 2003
    Because the issue is a matter for the district court in the first instance, and because "not everyone faced with a death penalty sentence will automatically be entitled to a post- Atkins hearing," State v. Williams, 01-1650, p. 27 (La.11/1/02), (implementing Atkins ), it is not appropriate for this Court to address the merits at this time or to order an evidentiary hearing on the claim.
  • State v. Cooper 839 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    486, 491 , 112 L.Ed.2d 489 (1990); State v. Williams, XXXX-XXXX (La.11/1/02), .
  • State v. Taylor 838 So. 2d 729 La. 2003
    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."); see also State v. Williams, 01-1650, p. 8 (La.11/1/02), , (Statutory rule of La.C.Cr.
  • State v. Dunn 831 So. 2d 862 La. 2002
    11/1/02), , another decision rendered this date we stated: *881 Defendant's case is governed by the recent decision from the United States Supreme Court, Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct.