State v. Gilbert, 758 So. 2d 779 (La. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Gilbert, 758 So. 2d 779 (La. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State Of Louisiana v. Jeremy Paul Sims (lactapp, 2024-12-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State Of Louisiana v. Jeremy Paul Sims
La. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Gilbert, 99- 2338 ( La. 2/ 4/ 00), 758 So. 2d 779 , 780 (pet- curiam). 8 In sentencing the defendant, the trial court failed to impose the mandatory fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars and failed to conduct a hearing or provide written reasons pursuant to La.
discussed Cited "see" State of Louisiana v. Andre Bell
La. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Gilbert, 1999-2338 (La. 2/4/00), 758 So. 2d 779 , 780 (per curiam). 5 Finally, we do not address Bell’s enhanced sentence pursuant to the habitual offender adjudication, as it is not currently before us.
cited Cited "see" State v. Martinez
La. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See, State v. Gilbert, 99-2338 (La.2/4/00), 758 So.2d 779, 779-80 . 2 . 411 So.2d 585 (La.App. 1 Cir.1982), writ denied, 413 So.2d 508 (La.1982). 3 .
discussed Cited "see" State v. Riggins
La. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See, State v. Gilbert, 99-2338 (La.2/4/00), 758 So.2d 779 (per curiam); State v. Parker, 00-1365, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/30/01), 778 So.2d 1167, 1168-69 , writ denied, 01-0615 (La.2/22/02), 809 So.2d 981 .
discussed Cited "see" State v. Hardan
La. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See, State v. Gilbert, 99-2238 (La.2/4/00), 758 So.2d 779 (per curiam); State v. Parker, 00-1365, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 5th Cir.1/30/01), 778 So.2d 1167, 1168-1169 , writ denied, 01-0615 (La.2/22/02), 809 So.2d 981 .
cited Cited "see" State v. Gilliam
La. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See, State v. Gilbert, 99-2338 (La.2/4/00), 758 So.2d 779 ; State v. Bunnell, 508 So.2d 55 (La.1987).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Armant
La. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
"Appeals are favored in law, and appeals should not be dismissed on hypertechnical interpretations of a statute which can be reasonably interpreted to preserve the appeal, particularly in the absence of any claim of prejudice by the opposing party." State v. Bunnell, 508 So.2d 55 (La.1987); see also, State v. Gilbert, 99-2338 (La.4/20/00), 758 So.2d 779 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Louisiana
v.
O'Neil GILBERT.
99-OK-2338.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Feb 4, 2000.
758 So. 2d 779
2000 WL 141202
Per Curiam.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

PER CURIAM.[*]

Granted. This case is remanded to the court of appeal for purposes of reinstating the defendant's appeal and for rebriefing. A defendant may appeal from a judgment which imposes a sentence, La.C.Cr.P. art. 912(C)(1), and such appeals are "favored in the law ." State v. Bunnell, 508 So.2d 55 (La.1987). An appellate court therefore may not dismiss a timely and properly filed appeal on grounds that the district court may vacate sentence and resentence the defendant on a pending multiple offender[*780] bill under La.R.S. 15:529.1. La. C.Cr.P. art. 916(8) vests jurisdiction in the district court to resentence the defendant as a multiple offender despite a pending appeal and thereby allows for prompt disposition of all issues related to punishment not only in the district court but also in an appellate court which otherwise has jurisdiction over the case. If the court of appeal has notice of a pending multiple bill and wishes to avoid piecemeal litigation, it may delay disposing of the appeal, direct the district court to expedite the hearing on defendant's multiple offender status, and, if necessary, exercise its authority under La.C.Cr.P. art. 914.1(C) to designate additional portions of the proceedings below as part of the appellate record for review, at any time before finality of its decision on the merits. La.C.Cr.P. art. 922; see State v. Taylor, 93-226 (La.App. 5th Cir.5/30/95), 656 So.2d 722.

[*] Lemmon, J., not on panel. See La.S.Ct.Rule IV, Part II, § 3.