Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hamdan, 112 So. 3d 812.

27 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Marlon a Sagastume La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana v. Rasheed McClebb La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
App. 4 Cir. 1/16/13), see also State v. Hamdan, [20]12–1986, p. 6 (La.3/19/13), (noting that “[o]n appeal from the trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash, the trial court’s legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review”).
State of Louisiana Versus Marlon Sagastume La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Willie J. Stevens, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
3/19/13), State v. Smith, 99-0606, p. 3 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Nathaniel Rhashawn Trahan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
3/19/13), State v. Smith, 99-0606, p. 3 (La.
State Of Louisiana v. Christine Jackson La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana v. Deismond Derral Simmons La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
3/19/13), State v. Smith, 99-0606, p. 3 (La.
State of Louisiana Versus Husam Odeh La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
Id; citing State v. Hamdan, 12–1986 (La.3/19/13)
State of Louisiana v. Michelle D. Harris La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
3/19/13), (noting that “[o]n appeal from the trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash, the trial court’s legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review”).
State v. Collins 275 So. 3d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Wells 262 So. 3d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
3/19/13), , 816 (noting that "[o]n appeal from the trial court's ruling on a motion to quash, the trial court's legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review").
State v. Brown 240 So. 3d 284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Woodrow Karey, Jr., A/K/A Woodrow Karey, II La. 2017
3/19/13), State v. Smith, 99-0606, p. 3 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Channing R. Gray 218 So. 3d 40 La. 2017
3/19/13), State v. Smith, 99-0606, p. 3 (La.
State v. Lyons 195 So. 3d 545 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
See State v. Hamdan, 12-1986 (La.3/19/13), , and State v. Smith, 99-0606, 99-2094, 99-2015, 99-2019 (La.7/6/00), .
State v. Lambert 191 So. 3d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Citing State v. Hamdan, 12-1986 (La.3/19/13), , the State pointed out that in analyzing predicate convictions out of foreign jurisdictions, the trial court is not confined to the |2ncharging instrument and must examine all of the available information in the record in determining whether that foreign crime, if committed in Louisiana, would be a felony.
State v. Gray 190 So. 3d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Hamdan, 2012-1986 (La.3/19/13), ; State v. Armstead, 2014-0036 (La.App.
State v. Butler 162 So. 3d 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 1/16/13), ; see also State v. Hamdan, 12-1986, p. 6 (La.3/19/13), (noting that “[o]n appeal from the trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash, the trial court’s legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review”).
State v. Armstead 159 So. 3d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Hamdan, 12-1986, p. 6 (La.3/19/13), .
State v. Ancalade 158 So. 3d 891 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Hamdan, 2012-1986, p. 7, (La.3/19/13), .
State v. Trepagnier 154 So. 3d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 1/16/13), ; *674 see also State v. Hamdan, 12-1986, p. 6 (La.3/19/13), (noting that "[o]n appeal from the trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash, the trial court’s legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review”).
State v. Hamdan 150 So. 3d 40 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Hamdan, 2012-1986 (La.3/19/13), .
State v. Jones 146 So. 3d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 12/18/13), (citing State v. Byrd, 96-2302, p. 18 (La.3/13/98), , 411 and State v. Hamdan, 12-1986, p. 6 (La.3/19/13), ).
State v. Marcelin 131 So. 3d 427 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
See State v. Hamdan, 12-1986, p. 6 (La.3/19/13), .
State v. Hamdan 131 So. 3d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Hamdan, 12-1986 (La.3/19/13), .
State v. Lawson 129 So. 3d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Hamdan, 12-1986, p. 6 (La.3/19/13), .
State v. Franklin 126 So. 3d 663 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
See State v. Hamdan, 12-1986, p. 6 (La.3/19/13), .