36 So. 3d 1105 - State v. Doucet’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 769 So. 2d 1158 - State v. Guzman · State ex rel. Newton v. State · State v. Smith · 846 So. 2d 786 - State v. Smith · 594 So. 2d 1 - State v. Batiste
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen the record contains sufficient evidence to address the ineffective assistance of counsel issue, this court examines "whether there was a reasonable probability that the trial court would have reduced" Defendant's sentence if Defendant's trial counsel made or filed a motion to reconsider sentence. [ State v. Blake , 03-1465 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/5/04) , 872 So.2d 602 ] at 608 (citing State v. Prudhomme , 02-511 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/30/02) , 829 So.2d 1166 , writ denied , 02-3230 (La. 10/10/03), 855 So.2d 324 ). When the defense counsel fails to file a motion to reconsider sentence, Defendant may have a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when Defendant "can show a reasonable probability, but for defense counsel's error, his sentence would have been different." Prudhomme , 829 So.2d at 1177 (citing State v. Texada , 98-1647 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/5/99) , 734 So.2d 854 ). Moreover, [a] claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is properly raised in an application for post-conviction relief. This allows the trial judge an opportunity to order a full evidentiary hearing on the matter. State v. Burkhalter , 428 So.2d 449 (La.1983). However, where the record contains evidence sufficient to decide the issue and the issue is raised by an assignment of error on appeal, it may be considered. State v. James , 95-962 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/14/96) , 670 So.2d 461 . State v. Francis , 99-208, pp. 10-11 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/6/99) , 748 So.2d 484 , 491, writ denied , 00-544 (La.11/13/00), 773 So”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A. When a criminal statute requires that all or a portion of a sentence imposed for a violation of that statute be served without benefit Rof probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, each sentence which is imposed under the provisions of that statute shall be deemed to contain the provisions relating to the service of that sentence without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The failure of a sentencing court to specifically state that all or a portion of the sentence is to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence shall not in any way affect the statutory requirement that all or a portion of the sentence be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. [[Image here]] C. The provisions of this Section shall apply to each provision of law which requires all or a portion of a criminal sentence to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, or of any one of them, any combination thereof, or any substantially similar provision or combination of substantially similar provisions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“To constitute an excessive sentence, this Court must find that the penalty is so grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime as to shock our sense of justice or that the sentence makes no reasonable contribution to acceptable penal goals and[,] therefore, is nothing more than the needless imposition of pain and | ¡¡suffering. The trial judge has broad discretion, and a reviewing court may not set sentences aside absent a manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Guzman, 99-1528, p. 15 (La.5/16/00), 769 So.2d 1158, 1167 (citations omitted). The following factors help to decide whether a sentence is shocking or makes no meaningful contribution to acceptable penal goals: “the nature of the offense, the circumstances of the offender, the legislative purpose behind the punishment[,] and a comparison of the sentences imposed for similar crimes.” State v. Smith, 02-719, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/12/03), 846 So.2d 786, 789 , writ denied, 03-562 (La.5/30/03), 845 So.2d 1061 (citing State v. Smith, 99-606, 99-2015, 99-2019, 99-2094 (La.7/6/00), 766 So.2d 501 ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.