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. Simpson 651 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    When, as here, a defendant moves for reconsideration of a sentence which has been imposed within the designated sentence range of the selected grid cell, and urges merely that the sentence is excessive, the defendant is “simply relegated to having the appellate court consider the bare claim of excessiveness.” This bare claim preserves only a claim of constitutional excessiveness.
  • State v. Mitchell 649 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Norris 649 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Henderson 648 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
    1/13/94 ; appeal after remand, (La.App.
  • State v. Rayford 644 So. 2d 1133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • State v. Free 643 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Tuttle 643 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Scott 641 So. 2d 1091 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    CONSTITUTIONAL EXCESSIVENESS Since defendant did not state any specific ground for reconsideration, he is “simply relegated to having the appellate court consider the bare claim of’ constitutional excessiveness.
  • State v. Hullaby 641 So. 2d 1094 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Ross 641 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Mitchell 639 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Collins 637 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    However, -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. Babin 637 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • State v. Armstrong 637 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Davis 633 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    which states: *827 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. Montz 632 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    However, the Supreme Court reviewed an excessive sentence claim where the motion to reconsider failed to set forth the grounds on which it was based as required by C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Dixon 631 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Gamberella 633 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • State v. Scott 634 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    (per curiam), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that (under LSA-C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Grant 627 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    Because the defendant failed to assert these claims in his motion to reconsider, he is relegated to having the appellate court consider his “bare claim of excessiveness.”
  • State v. Lewis 633 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • State v. Lewis 633 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • State v. Lewis 633 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • State v. Cole 626 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    Because Cole merely alleges that his sentence is excessive, he is “simply relegated to having the appellate court consider the bare claim of excessiveness.” This bare claim preserves only a claim of constitutional excessiveness.
  • State v. Green 626 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    I ask that you would have compassion and understanding in your sentence of me. Because defendant in his motion to reconsider sought only a lesser sentence, we are relegated to a review of “the bare claim of excessiveness.”
  • State v. Mims 626 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Gladney 626 So. 2d 778 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Arbuthnot 625 So. 2d 1377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • State v. McEachern 624 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    he is, therefore, "simply relegated to having the appellate court consider the bare claim of excessiveness."
  • State v. Eason 624 So. 2d 934 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    Art. 881.1 A(2) and 88.1 D
  • State v. Juarez 624 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Jackson 622 So. 2d 1224 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    as having obviated this statutory requirement that a motion to reconsider sentence be filed in order to preserve a claim of excessive sentence for appellate review.
  • State v. Caldwell 620 So. 2d 859 La. 1993