State Ex Rel. Sawyer v. Maggio, 468 So. 2d 554 (La. 1985). · Go Syfert
State Ex Rel. Sawyer v. Maggio, 468 So. 2d 554 (La. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
34 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Brooks (lactapp, 2013-09-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Brooks
La. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
See Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 861-64 , 105 S.Ct. 1668, 1671-73 , 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985) (“To say that a [defendant] may be prosecuted simultaneously for violation [of separate offenses] ... is not to say that he may be convicted and punished for two offenses.... [T]he only remedy consistent with the [legislative] intent is for the District Court, where the sentencing responsibility resides, to exercise its discretion to vacate one of the underlying convictions.... [which alone] is unauthorized punishment for a separate offense ”)(citing Hunter); State v. Dubaz, 468 So.2d 554, 556…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hall
La. · 2012 · confidence medium
See Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 861-64 , 105 S.Ct. 1668, 1671-73 , 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985) (“To say that a [defendant] may be prosecuted simultaneously for violation [of separate offenses] ... is not to say that he may be convicted and punished for two offenses .... [T]he only remedy consistent with the [legislative] intent is for the District Court, where the sentencing responsibility resides, to exercise its discretion to vacate one of the underlying convictions .... [which alone] is unauthorized punishment for a separate offense.”)(citing Hunter); State v. Dubaz, 468 So.2d 554, 5…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harrison v. State
Tex. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
Courts in a number of jurisdictions have expressly held that a double-jeopardy attack raises a “jurisdictional defect.” State v. Madera, 198 Conn. 92 , 503 A.2d 136,139, n. 6 (1985); State v. Dubaz, 468 So.2d 554, 556 (La.1985); People v. Reid, 113 Mich. App. 262 , 317 N.W.2d 589, 591 (1982), aff'd, 420 Mich. 326 , 362 N.W.2d 655 (1984); State v. Cody, 525 S.W.2d 333, 335 (Mo. 1975).
cited Cited "see" State v. Williams
La. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Dubaz, 468 So.2d 554 (La.1985), and State v. Stevenson, 597 So.2d 74 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1992), writ denied, 600 So.2d 637 (La.1992).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Head
La. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Dubaz, 468 So.2d 554 (La.1985) where the Louisiana Supreme Court vacated the conviction and sentence of the less severely punishable offense based on a double jeopardy violation, and then vacated the sentence of the affirmed conviction and remanded for resentencing.
cited Cited "see" State v. Hargrove
La. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Dubaz, 468 So.2d 554 (La.1985) (Lemmon, J., concurring).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Copelin
La. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
C.Cr.P. art. 594 (providing that “[djouble jeopardy may be raised at any time”); see also State v. Earnest, 95-1689, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/8/96), 673 So.2d 1341, 1343 (noting that double jeopardy is a “jurisdictional defect,” that is, one that calls into question the sitting court’s power to hear the case” and citing State v. Dubaz, 468 So.2d 554 (La. 1985)).
STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Robert SAWYER
v.
Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.
85-KP-0660.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
May 13, 1985.
468 So. 2d 554
Per Curiam.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

PER CURIAM.

In our previous order we instructed the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on whether defendant received effective assistance of counsel and to reconsider defendant's entire application in light of that evidence. 450 So.2d 355 (La.1984). The parties and the district court misconstrued our order of an evidentiary hearing as being limited to the issue of whether counsel was ineffective because he had not been admitted to the bar for at least five years. Our concerns were not so limited, however, and we now remand the case for an evidentiary hearing on all of the defendant's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel during the preparation, trial and penalty phase of his case.

WRIT GRANTED; CASE REMANDED FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

LEMMON, J., concurs. This Court's determination of relator's claim may turn on evidence regarding defense counsel's waiver of closing argument during the guilt phase.