Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Guidry, 124 So. 832.

32 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Kenneth Wayne Montgomery La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Woods 828 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
State v. Everett 816 So. 2d 1272 La. 2002
State v. Jackson 726 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Soileau 677 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
State v. Moore 663 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
The supreme court’s reasoning was based on an earlier decision of the court, , 124 So.
State v. Authement 663 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
The supreme court’s reasoning was based on an earlier decision of the court, , 124 So.
State v. Cossey 663 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
The supreme court’s reasoning was based on an earlier decision of the court, , 124 So.
Bancroft v. Louisiana Dept. of Corr. 635 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Adams 446 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970); , 124 So.
State Ex Rel. Bickman v. Dees 367 So. 2d 283 La. 1978
State v. Williams 358 So. 2d 943 La. 1978
14:95.1 constitutes an ex post facto law with respect to convictions which occurred prior to the effective date of the statute, , 124 So.
State v. Badon 338 So. 2d 665 La. 1976
1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970); , 124 So.
State v. Jones 332 So. 2d 461 La. 1976
State v. Bullock 329 So. 2d 733 La. 1976
1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970); , 124 So.
State v. Williams 326 So. 2d 815 La. 1976
1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 ; , 124 So.
State v. Maduell 326 So. 2d 820 La. 1976
State v. Alexander 325 So. 2d 777 La. 1976
State v. Williams 322 So. 2d 177 La. 1975
1056 , (1968), rev'd on other grounds, 399 U.S. 30 , 90 S. Ct. 1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970); , 124 So.
State v. McQueen 308 So. 2d 752 La. 1975
City of Monroe v. Fincher 305 So. 2d 108 La. 1974
State v. Vale 215 So. 2d 811 La. 1968
15:529.1 provides for increased punishment for second and subsequent offenders and prescribes the procedure to be followed, but does not require a trial by jury, , 124 So.
State v. Hingle 139 So. 2d 205 La. 1962
State v. Dreaux 17 So. 2d 559 La. 1944
State v. O'Day 185 So. 290 La. 1938
State v. Cass 177 So. 682 La. 1937
[215] 218, 222, 223, .” Act No. 15 of 1928 § 2 provides: “A person, to be punishable under this and the preceding section, need not have been indicted and convicted as a previous offender in order to receive the increased punishment therein provided, but may be proceeded against as provided in the following section.” Defendant’s counsel c
State v. Brown 171 So. 55 La. 1936
State v. Simpson 165 So. 708 La. 1936
State v. Ugarte 145 So. 266 La. 1932
State v. Hardy 141 So. 27 La. 1932
State v. Dupont 127 So. 375 La. 1930
and larceny is punishable by imprisonment, with or without hard labor, and therefore.‘subject to’ an infamous punishment, it follows that grand larceny is a felony within the meaning of our laws and of the jurisprudence of this court.” In this case the validity of Act No. 15 of 1928 is not attacked, , 124 So.
Overruled State v. Charles 125 So. 587 La. 1929
Counsel for the defendant filed a motion to quash the so-called bill of information, accusing him of *545 being a second offender, and filed several demurrers, pleading that the Act No. 15 oí 1928 was unconstitutional, for the same reasons that were urged in the case of State v. William Guidry (No. 30,051), ,i and that were since decided contrary to the pleader’s contentions in that case.