Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Watkins, 146 So. 3d 294.
- State of Louisiana v. Wayne Jackson La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
-
State of Louisiana v. Robert E. Smith Jr.
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
5 Cir. 8/6/14), (citations omitted).
-
State v. Pike
273 So. 3d 488
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
App. 4 Cir. 8/6/14), , 303 (citing State v. Wells , 10-1338 (La.
-
State v. Bibbins
258 So. 3d 134
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
App. 4 Cir. 8/6/14), , 303, quoting State v. Huckabay , 00-1082, p. 32 (La.
-
State v. Green
220 So. 3d 103
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
App. 4 Cir. 8/6/14), , as follows: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
State v. Garrison
215 So. 3d 333
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
4 Cir. 8/6/14) , , this Court considered the same claim made by Defendant in this case, that the State failed to prove he made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights prior to entering a plea of guilty to the Texas conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle, __[iSrelying on identical Texas state court/conviction document
-
State v. Chambers
212 So. 3d 643
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
4 Cir. 8/6/14), (citing State v. Wells, 2010-1338, p. 5 (La.App.
-
State v. Hickman
207 So. 3d 500
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4 Cir. 8/6/14), , “[t]his Court has repeatedly held the Habitual Offender Act does not require the State to use a specific type of evidence to carry its burden at a habitual offender hearing.
-
State v. Wells
203 So. 3d 233
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4 Cir. 8/6/14) , , we said: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
State v. Jackson
193 So. 3d 425
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
App. 4 Cir. 8/6/14), 3 (quoting State v. Huckabay, 00-1082, p. 32 (La.App.
-
State v. Dove
194 So. 3d 92
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4 Cir. 8/6/14) , , as follows: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court .must determine whether, viewing the.
-
State v. Lambert
191 So. 3d 630
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4 Cir. 8/6/14) , , as follows: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate' court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
State v. Rumley
183 So. 3d 640
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 8/6/14) , (quoting State v. Huckabay, 2000-1082, p. 32 (La.App.
-
State v. Jones
182 So. 3d 251
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 8/6/14) , , as follows: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
State v. Davis
176 So. 3d 580
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 8/6/14) , , as follows: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in *591 the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.