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. Jackson 734 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/98), .
  • State v. Richmond 734 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    after remand, 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. Richmond 734 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    after remand, 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. Williams 729 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    5th Cir. 4/9/97), , writ denied, 97-1255 (La.10/13/97)
  • State v. Erwin 734 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    art. 881.1(A)(2) provides that a motion to reconsider sentence “shall set forth the specific grounds on which the motion is based.” the defendant’s motion to reconsider sentence alleged only that the sentence imposed was excessive.
  • State v. Moreau 726 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    State v. Holmes, 94 -907 (La.
  • State v. Willis 728 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Medious 722 So. 2d 1086 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
  • State v. Spradley 722 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    P. art. 881.1; -60 (La.1993).
  • State v. Jones 720 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    (per curiam), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that (under La.Code Crim.
  • State v. Scott 716 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    State v. Duncan, 30,463 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/98), ; State v. Park, 30,394 (La.App.2d Cir.2/25/98), .
  • State v. Branch 714 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    (wherein the defendant presented a motion for reconsideration at the trial court level), obviate the statutory requirement that a motion to reconsider sentence be filed in *1288 order to preserve an excessive sentence claim for appellate review.
  • State v. Hampton 716 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    constituted an objection sufficient to preserve a review of a
  • State v. Wilson 714 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Fairley 711 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    art. 881.1 D; (per curiam); (La.App.
  • State v. Roberts 708 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    State v. Holmes, 94-907 (La.App.
  • State v. Park 707 So. 2d 1058 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    State v. Duncan, 30,453 (La.App.
  • State v. Duncan 707 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Curtis 707 So. 2d 1328 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
  • State v. Joubert 705 So. 2d 1295 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    3 Cir. 3/6/96) , ; appeal after remand, (La.App.
  • State v. Hammond 704 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    appeal after remand, (La.App.
  • State v. Washington 705 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Washington 705 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Anderson 702 So. 2d 40 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Mitchell 697 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Although defense counsel did not submit a written motion to reconsider or state any specific grounds for attacking the instant sentence, the foregoing statement arguably could be considered as a "bare claim of excessiveness"
  • State v. Pendelton 696 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
  • State v. Franklin 693 So. 2d 219 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Jackson 694 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    See also, writ denied, 93-2933 (La.2/11/94), .
  • State v. Williams 688 So. 2d 1343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    appeal after remand, (La.App.
  • State v. Vaurigaud 690 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • State v. Handley 686 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • State v. Balser 694 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Demouchet 684 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Thus, this claim was not properly preserved
  • State v. Green 683 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    -1060 (La.1993), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: 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. Reaves 681 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Henton 682 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    as having obviated the statutory requirement that a motion to reconsider sentence be filed in order to preserve a claim of excessive sentence for appellate review.
  • State v. Brantley 679 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Williams 677 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Ordinarily, defendant's failure to raise the claims in a appeal after remand, (La.
  • State v. Smith 677 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    as having obviated the statutory requirement that a motion to reconsider sentence be filed in order to preserve a claim of excessive sentence for appellate review.
  • State v. Davis 674 So. 2d 1013 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    We do not read the Louisiana Supreme Court’s as having obviated the statutory requirement that a motion to reconsider sentence be filed in order to preserve a claim of excessive sentence for appellate review.
  • State v. Collins 677 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Thus, finding defense counsel's claim and defendant's pro-se claim regarding the Louisiana Sentencing Guidelines to be moot, as well as defendant's claim regarding mitigating factors to not be properly before this court, appeal after remand, (La.App.
  • State v. Davis 672 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Tate 670 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Pyke 670 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    appeal after remand (La.App.
  • State v. Famous 667 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Robinson 661 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    as having obviated the statutory requirement that a motion to reconsider sentence be filed in order to preserve a claim of excessive sentence for appellate review.
  • State v. Dunbar 657 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    the supreme court found: 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. Brown 656 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Andrews 655 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    -1060 (La.1993), the Supreme Court indicated that "[i]f the defendant does not allege any specific ground for excessiveness [in his motion to reconsider sentence] or present any argument or evidence not previously considered by the court at original sentencing, then the defendant does not lose the right to appeal
  • State v. Southall 652 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    -60 (La.1993) (per curiam).