DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State ex rel. Jackson v. State, 90 So. 3d 384.

16 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana Versus Perry J. Haydel, Jr. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
  • State Of Louisiana v. Justin Lee Warner La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
    5/ 25/ 12), ( per curiam), and writ denied, 2011- 2476 ( La.
  • State of Louisiana Versus Walter Dj Thomas La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
    5/25/12), (per curium), where the Louisiana Supreme Court suggested that “a habitual offender hearing should not be considered part of the record for purposes of error patent review and that a defendant must assign as error any perceived defect in the proceedings to preserve appellate review of the claimed error.” 20-KA-97
  • State v. Saulny 220 So. 3d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    5/25/12), (per curiam ).
  • State v. Durr 202 So. 3d 996 La. 2016
    5/25/12), ; State v. Stokes, 10-1387 (La.
  • State v. Fairman 173 So. 3d 1278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    It is noted that the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that “a habitual offender hearing should not be considered part of the record for purposes of error patent review and that a defendant must assign as error "any perceived defect in the proceedings to preserve appellate review of the claimed error.” State v. Moore, 12-0102 (La.5/25/12), (per curiam).
  • State v. Jones 165 So. 3d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    See, e.g., State v. Moore, 12-0102 (La.5/25/12), (per curiam) (discussing errors patent review in the context of Boykin colloquies and multiple offender proceedings); State v. Gayton, 13-1613 (La.App.
  • State v. Lewis 169 So. 3d 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    It is noted that the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that "a habitual offender hearing should not be considered part of the record for purposes of error patent review and that a defendant must assign as error any perceived defect in the proceedings to preserve appellate review of the claimed error.” State v. Moore, 12-0102 (La.5/25/12), (per curiam).
  • State v. Williams 151 So. 3d 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2 |fiWe note that under the Louisiana Supreme Court ruling in State v. Moore, 12-102 (La.5/25/12), (per curiam ), we do not conduct an error patent review on a multiple offender hearing.
  • State v. Hager 148 So. 3d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    However, in State v. Moore, 12-102 (La.5/25/12), (per curiam), the Louisiana Supreme Court found that a habitual offender hearing should not be considered part of the record for purposes of error patent review, and that a defendant must assign as error any perceived defect in the proceedings to preserve appellate review of the claimed error.
  • State v. Debrow 138 So. 3d 1229 La. 2014
    Jackson v. State, 11-0394 (La.5/25/12), ; State v. Stokes, 10-1387 (La.2/11/11), .
  • State v. Abdul 131 So. 3d 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    But see State v. Moore, 12-102 (La.5/25/12), , writ denied, 11-2476 (La.6/22/12), , finding that a habitual offender hearing should not be considered part of the record for purposes of error patent review and that a defendant must assign as error any perceived defect in the proceedings to preserve appellate review of the claimed error.
  • State ex rel. Ford v. State 107 So. 3d 640 La. 2013
    Jackson v. State, 11-0394 (La.5/25/12), ; State v. Stokes, 10-1387 (La.2/11/11), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Dietrich Jamal Thibodeaux AKA Dietrich Thibodeaux AKA Dietrich J. Thibodeaux Etc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    5/25/12), the supreme court stated “that a habitual offender hearing should not be considered part of the record for purposes of error patent review and that a defendant must assign as error any perceived defect in the proceedings to preserve appellate review of the claimed error.” As stated above, considering o
  • State v. Thibodeaux 100 So. 3d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    However, in State v. Moore, 12-102, p. 1 (La.5/25/12), , the supreme court stated “that a habitual offender hearing should not be considered part of the record for purposes of error patent review and that a defendant must assign as error any perceived defect in the proceedings to preserve appellate review of the claimed error.” As stated above, considering our thorou
  • State ex rel. Thinh Tran v. State 99 So. 3d 1005 La. 2012
    Jackson v. State, 11-0394 (La.5/25/12), ; State v. Stokes, 10-1387 (La.2/11/11), .