DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Stockle v. Zimmer, USA, 619 So. 2d 1059.

583 citing documents.

  • State v. Manasco 782 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Since defendant's motion for reconsideration merely alleged that the sentence is excessive, (La.
  • State v. Spencer 781 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    *789 -60 (La.1993): Under Article 881.1 the defendant must file a motion to reconsider and set forth the "specific grounds" upon which the motion is based in order to raise an objection to the sentence on appeal.
  • State v. Jackson 781 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • State v. Barling 779 So. 2d 1035 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
  • State v. English 774 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.
  • State v. Hopkins 774 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/98), .
  • State v. Reese 774 So. 2d 1164 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    art. 881.1 D; State v. Thompson, 33 ,204 (La.App.
  • State v. Nelson 775 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.
  • State v. Robinson 772 So. 2d 966 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Clark 774 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Morris 770 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • State v. Wilkinson 772 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that, while article 881.1 precludes the defendant from presenting arguments to the court of appeal which were not presented to the court at a point in the proceedings when the trial court was in a position to correct the deficiency, it does not preclude the court from consid
  • State v. Sanders 769 So. 2d 183 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/98), ; (La.App.
  • State v. George 768 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Watkins 768 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Watkins 768 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Collins 768 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • Smith v. Cutter Biological 770 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    and dismissed this Court used the terms HIV and AIDS interchangeably, referring *400 to "AIDS tainted blood" at p. 132 which technically should have read "HIV tainted blood."
  • State v. Tribbit 767 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    State v. Holmes, 94 -907 (La.App.
  • State v. Stevens 766 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    art. 881.1; State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.
  • State v. Perkins 762 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    [25] State v. Holmes, 94 -907 (La.App.
  • State v. McDonald 766 So. 2d 591 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/98), .
  • State v. Anderson 764 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.
  • State v. Hunter 765 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    art. 881.1(D); State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.App.2d Cir.02/25/98), .
  • State v. Debrow 763 So. 2d 791 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    State v. Mitchell, 26,070 (La.App.
  • State v. Wickem 759 So. 2d 961 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    State v. Holmes, 94 -907 at p. 8 (La.App.
  • State v. Jetton 756 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. James 754 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.
  • State v. Thompson 754 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Since the motion for reconsideration merely alleged that the sentence is excessive, (La.
  • State v. Tolliver 753 So. 2d 958 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/98), .
  • State v. Robertson 756 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    NOTES [1] State v. Holmes, 94 -907 (La.App.
  • State v. Thompson 752 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Williams 747 So. 2d 1256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/98), .
  • State v. Thomas 749 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/98), .
  • State v. Rose 750 So. 2d 1085 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/98), .
  • State v. Stec 749 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    State v. Holmes, 94 -907 (La.
  • State v. Dauzart 749 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    [17] State v. Holmes, 94 -907 (La.App.
  • State v. Louis 744 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/98), .
  • State v. Hawkins 743 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Etienne 746 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Armstrong 743 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Rowe 747 So. 2d 619 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/98), .
  • State v. Cherry 752 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.
  • State v. Hollins 742 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    [4] In Jackson , *687 writ denied, 93-2933 (La.2/11/94), , the Louisiana Supreme Court was silent as to whether the failure to comply with Article 881.1 precludes even a claim of constitutional excessiveness.
  • State v. Watson 743 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Willis, supra ; State v. Washington, 30,108 (La.App.2d Cir.12/10/97), , writ denied, 98-0148 (La.5/8/98), .
  • State v. Robinson 744 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Ball 733 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Mims, 93-0808 (La.6/18/93), ; State v. Park, 30,394 (La.App.
  • State v. Bickham 739 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    While a contemporaneous objection to a sentence on excessiveness grounds alone preserves a bare claim of excessiveness ( ), in light of those cases, the clear and unequivocal wording of LSA-C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Myers 737 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    State v. Holmes, 94 -907 (La.App.
  • State v. Pickrom 732 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.App.