mere articulation standard (Louisiana) · Go Syfert
← Louisiana issues

mere articulation standard in Louisiana

31 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2019 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Merrittgreen
lactapp · 2004 · cited in 4 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2004–2013
2 sentences

2013Where the trial court does impose consecutive penalties, it “must articulate particular justification for such a sentence beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1” State v. Merritt, 03-946, p. 28 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/17/04), 875 So.2d 80, 97 (quoting State v. Dempsey, 02-1867, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037, 1040 , writ denied, 03-1917(La.6/25/04), 876 So.2d 823 ).

2008Where the trial court does impose consecutive penalties, it "must articulate particular justification for such a sentence beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1[.]" State v. Merritt, 03-946, p. 28 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/17/04), 875 So.2d 80, 97 , [rev'd on other grounds, 03-946 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/13/04) , 884 So.2d 1283 ,] (quoting State v. Dempsey, 02-1867, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037, 1040 , writ denied, 03-1917 (La.6/25/04), 876 So.2d 823 ).

34
State v. Dempseygreen
lactapp · 2003 · cited in 19 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2004–2019
2 sentences

2019In State v. Dempsey, 02-1867, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037 , 1040, writ denied, 03-1917 (La. 6/25/04), 876 So.2d 823 (citing State v. Pittman, 604 So.2d 172 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992), writ denied, 610 So.2d 796 (La.1/8/93) ), the fourth circuit set forth the standard to be used when considering consecutive sentences for crimes arising out of the same scheme or plan, as follows: "[T]he trial court must articulate particular justification for such a sentence beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.[Code Crim.P.] art. 894.1." In Urena , 215 So.3

2019In State v. Dempsey, 02-1867, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037 , 1040, writ denied, 03-1917 (La. 6/25/04), 876 So.2d 823 (citing State v. Pittman, 604 So.2d 172 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992), writ denied, 610 So.2d 796 (La.1/8/93) ), the fourth circuit set forth the standard to be used when considering consecutive sentences for crimes arising out of the same scheme or plan, as follows: "[T]he trial court must articulate particular justification for such a sentence beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.[Code Crim.P.] art. 894.1." In Urena , 215 So.3

119
State v. Messergreen
la · 1982 · cited in 8 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1989–2013
2 sentences

2013However, in Messer , the Court merely noted that, “[a]s a general rule, the imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences for crimes arising from a single course of conduct requires particular justification.” 408 So.2d at 1357 , citing State v. Franks, 373 So.2d 1307 (La.1979)(imposition of consecutive sentences requires particular justification), and State v. Cox, 369 So.2d 118 (La.1979)(trial court did not specify reasons for issuing consecutive sentences).

2013This Court has repeatedly held that in executing this discretion by imposing consecutive, |4rather than concurrent, sentences, the trial court must articulate particular justification for such sentencing, “beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1.” State v. Jefferson, 2004-1960 p. 39 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/21/05), 922 So.2d 577, 604 , citing State v. Dempsey, 2002-1867 p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037, 1040 , citing, State v. Pittman, 604 So.2d 172 (La.App. 4th Cir.1992), citing State v. Messer, 408 So.2d 1354 (La.1982).

18
State v. Jacksongreen
lactapp · 1989 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1990–1991
2 sentences

1991State v. Messer, 408 So.2d 1354 (La.1982); State v. Jackson, 552 So.2d 445 (La.App. 4th Cir.1989); State v. Smith, 539 So.2d 993 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1989).

1990State v. Messer, 408 So.2d 1354, 1357 (La.1982), State v. Jackson, 552 So.2d 445, 448 (La.A pp. 4 Cir.1989).

12
State v. Thibodeauxgreen
lactapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (28)

CaseCitedYears
STATE EX REL. DEMPSEY v. State neutral
la · 2004
2 sentences

2019In State v. Dempsey, 02-1867, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037 , 1040, writ denied, 03-1917 (La. 6/25/04), 876 So.2d 823 (citing State v. Pittman, 604 So.2d 172 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992), writ denied, 610 So.2d 796 (La.1/8/93) ), the fourth circuit set forth the standard to be used when considering consecutive sentences for crimes arising out of the same scheme or plan, as follows: "[T]he trial court must articulate particular justification for such a sentence beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.[Code Crim.P.] art. 894.1." In Urena , 215 So.3

2019In State v. Dempsey, 02-1867, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037 , 1040, writ denied, 03-1917 (La. 6/25/04), 876 So.2d 823 (citing State v. Pittman, 604 So.2d 172 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992), writ denied, 610 So.2d 796 (La.1/8/93) ), the fourth circuit set forth the standard to be used when considering consecutive sentences for crimes arising out of the same scheme or plan, as follows: "[T]he trial court must articulate particular justification for such a sentence beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.[Code Crim.P.] art. 894.1." In Urena , 215 So.3

62004–2019
State v. Pittman green
lactapp · 1992
2 sentences

2019In State v. Dempsey, 02-1867, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037 , 1040, writ denied, 03-1917 (La. 6/25/04), 876 So.2d 823 (citing State v. Pittman, 604 So.2d 172 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992), writ denied, 610 So.2d 796 (La.1/8/93) ), the fourth circuit set forth the standard to be used when considering consecutive sentences for crimes arising out of the same scheme or plan, as follows: "[T]he trial court must articulate particular justification for such a sentence beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.[Code Crim.P.] art. 894.1." In Urena , 215 So.3

2019In State v. Dempsey, 02-1867, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037 , 1040, writ denied, 03-1917 (La. 6/25/04), 876 So.2d 823 (citing State v. Pittman, 604 So.2d 172 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992), writ denied, 610 So.2d 796 (La.1/8/93) ), the fourth circuit set forth the standard to be used when considering consecutive sentences for crimes arising out of the same scheme or plan, as follows: "[T]he trial court must articulate particular justification for such a sentence beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.[Code Crim.P.] art. 894.1." In Urena , 215 So.3

62003–2019
State v. Dunbar green
lactapp · 1995
2 sentences

2008State v. Dunbar, 94-1492 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/31/95) , 657 So.2d 429 . "[T]he trial court must articulate particular justification for such a sentence beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1." State v. Dempsey, 02-1867, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037, 1040 .

2008State v. Dunbar, 94-1492 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/31/95) , 657 So.2d 429 . "[T]he trial court must articulate particular justification for such a sentence beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1." State v. Dempsey, 02-1867, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037, 1040 .

52004–2008
State v. Smith green
lactapp · 1989
2 sentences

1992State v. Messer, 408 So.2d 1354 (La.1982); State v. Smith, 539 So.2d 993 (La.App. 4th Cir.1989).

1991State v. Messer, 408 So.2d 1354 (La.1982); State v. Jackson, 552 So.2d 445 (La.App. 4th Cir.1989); State v. Smith, 539 So.2d 993 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1989).

51989–1992
State v. Pittman neutral
la · 1993
2 sentences

2019In State v. Dempsey, 02-1867, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037 , 1040, writ denied, 03-1917 (La. 6/25/04), 876 So.2d 823 (citing State v. Pittman, 604 So.2d 172 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992), writ denied, 610 So.2d 796 (La.1/8/93) ), the fourth circuit set forth the standard to be used when considering consecutive sentences for crimes arising out of the same scheme or plan, as follows: "[T]he trial court must articulate particular justification for such a sentence beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.[Code Crim.P.] art. 894.1." In Urena , 215 So.3

2019In State v. Dempsey, 02-1867, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037 , 1040, writ denied, 03-1917 (La. 6/25/04), 876 So.2d 823 (citing State v. Pittman, 604 So.2d 172 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992), writ denied, 610 So.2d 796 (La.1/8/93) ), the fourth circuit set forth the standard to be used when considering consecutive sentences for crimes arising out of the same scheme or plan, as follows: "[T]he trial court must articulate particular justification for such a sentence beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.[Code Crim.P.] art. 894.1." In Urena , 215 So.3

42011–2019
Ortego v. Louisiana green
scotus · 1980
2 sentences

2008Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

2008Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

42004–2008
State v. Ortego green
la · 1980
2 sentences

2008Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

2007Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

42004–2008
State v. Lewis green
lactapp · 1983
2 sentences

2008Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

2007Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

32004–2008
State v. Parker green
lactapp · 1987
2 sentences

2008Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

2007Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

32004–2008
State v. Adams neutral
la · 1986
2 sentences

2008Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

2007Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

32004–2008
State v. Jett green
la · 1982
2 sentences

2008Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

2008Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

32004–2008
State v. Lewis green
la · 1983
2 sentences

2008Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

2007Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

32004–2008
State v. Adams neutral
lactapp · 1986
2 sentences

2008Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

2008Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

32004–2008
State v. Jacobs green
lactapp · 1986
2 sentences

2008Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

2007Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

32004–2008
State v. Clark green
lactapp · 1986
2 sentences

2008Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

2007Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

32004–2008
State v. Marcelin green
lactapp · 2013
2 sentences

2019Marcelin, 12-0645 at p. 19, 116 So.3d at 939 ; State v. Williams, 11-0414, p. 29 (La.

2019Marcelin, 12-0645 at p. 19, 116 So.3d at 939 ; State v. Williams, 11-0414, p. 29 (La.

22019–2019
State v. Urena neutral
lactapp · 2016
2 sentences

2019In State v. Dempsey, 02-1867, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037 , 1040, writ denied, 03-1917 (La. 6/25/04), 876 So.2d 823 (citing State v. Pittman, 604 So.2d 172 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992), writ denied, 610 So.2d 796 (La.1/8/93) ), the fourth circuit set forth the standard to be used when considering consecutive sentences for crimes arising out of the same scheme or plan, as follows: "[T]he trial court must articulate particular justification for such a sentence beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.[Code Crim.P.] art. 894.1." In Urena , 215 So.3

2019In State v. Dempsey, 02-1867, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037 , 1040, writ denied, 03-1917 (La. 6/25/04), 876 So.2d 823 (citing State v. Pittman, 604 So.2d 172 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992), writ denied, 610 So.2d 796 (La.1/8/93) ), the fourth circuit set forth the standard to be used when considering consecutive sentences for crimes arising out of the same scheme or plan, as follows: "[T]he trial court must articulate particular justification for such a sentence beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.[Code Crim.P.] art. 894.1." In Urena , 215 So.3

22019–2019
State v. Hurst neutral
la · 2011
2 sentences

2018Defendant pointed to this court in State v. Hurst , 10-1204 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/13/11) , 62 So.3d 327 , writ denied , 11-975 (La. 10/21/11), 73 So.3d 383 , where the court stated: Before the trial court may impose consecutive sentences, it "must articulate particular justification for such a sentence beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1." State v. Dempsey , 02-1867, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037 , 1040 (citing State v. Pittman , 604 So.2d 172 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992), writ denied , 610 So.2d 796 (La.1993) ).

2013C.Cr.P. art. 894.1.” State v. Hurst, 10-1204, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/13/11), 62 So.3d 327, 334 , writ denied, 11-975 (La.10/21/11), 73 So.3d 383 (citing State v. Dempsey, 02-1867, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037, 1040 ).

22013–2018
State v. Hurst neutral
lactapp · 2011
2 sentences

2018Defendant pointed to this court in State v. Hurst , 10-1204 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/13/11) , 62 So.3d 327 , writ denied , 11-975 (La. 10/21/11), 73 So.3d 383 , where the court stated: Before the trial court may impose consecutive sentences, it "must articulate particular justification for such a sentence beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1." State v. Dempsey , 02-1867, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037 , 1040 (citing State v. Pittman , 604 So.2d 172 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992), writ denied , 610 So.2d 796 (La.1993) ).

2018Defendant pointed to this court in State v. Hurst , 10-1204 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/13/11) , 62 So.3d 327 , writ denied , 11-975 (La. 10/21/11), 73 So.3d 383 , where the court stated: Before the trial court may impose consecutive sentences, it "must articulate particular justification for such a sentence beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1." State v. Dempsey , 02-1867, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037 , 1040 (citing State v. Pittman , 604 So.2d 172 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992), writ denied , 610 So.2d 796 (La.1993) ).

22013–2018
State v. Vollm green
lactapp · 2004
2 sentences

2013State v. Vollm, 04-837, p. 6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/10/04), 887 So.2d 664, 669 .

2008State v. Vollm, 04-837, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/10/04), 887 So.2d 664, 668-69 .

22008–2013
State v. Jefferson green
lactapp · 2005
2 sentences

2013In State v. Jefferson, 04-1960, p. 39 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/21/05), 922 So.2d 577, 604 , this Court explained, while “Louisiana law favors concurrent sentences for crimes committed as part of a single transaction, a trial judge retains the discretion to impose consecutive sentences on the basis of other factors.” Nevertheless, the trial court must articulate specific justification “beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.

2013This Court has repeatedly held that in executing this discretion by imposing consecutive, |4rather than concurrent, sentences, the trial court must articulate particular justification for such sentencing, “beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1.” State v. Jefferson, 2004-1960 p. 39 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/21/05), 922 So.2d 577, 604 , citing State v. Dempsey, 2002-1867 p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037, 1040 , citing, State v. Pittman, 604 So.2d 172 (La.App. 4th Cir.1992), citing State v. Messer, 408 So.2d 1354 (La.1982).

22013–2013
State v. Sherer green
la · 1983
2 sentences

2008Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

2004Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La. 1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant co

22004–2008
State v. Lighten green
lactapp · 1987
2 sentences

2008Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant cons

2004Among the factors to be considered are the defendant's criminal history, State v. Ortego, [ 382 So.2d 921 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 848 , 101 S.Ct. 135 , 66 L.Ed.2d 58 (1980)]; State v. Jacobs, 493 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986); the gravity or dangerousness of the offense, State v. Adams, 493 So.2d 835 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La. 1986); the viciousness of the crimes, State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); the harm done to the victims, State v. Lewis, 430 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 435 So.2d 433 (La.1983); whether the defendant co

22004–2008
State v. Cox green
la · 1979
1 sentence

2013However, in Messer , the Court merely noted that, “[a]s a general rule, the imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences for crimes arising from a single course of conduct requires particular justification.” 408 So.2d at 1357 , citing State v. Franks, 373 So.2d 1307 (La.1979)(imposition of consecutive sentences requires particular justification), and State v. Cox, 369 So.2d 118 (La.1979)(trial court did not specify reasons for issuing consecutive sentences).

12013–2013
State v. Franks green
la · 1979
1 sentence

2013However, in Messer , the Court merely noted that, “[a]s a general rule, the imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences for crimes arising from a single course of conduct requires particular justification.” 408 So.2d at 1357 , citing State v. Franks, 373 So.2d 1307 (La.1979)(imposition of consecutive sentences requires particular justification), and State v. Cox, 369 So.2d 118 (La.1979)(trial court did not specify reasons for issuing consecutive sentences).

12013–2013
State v. Merritt neutral
lactapp · 2004
1 sentence

2008Where the trial court does impose consecutive penalties, it "must articulate particular justification for such a sentence beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1[.]" State v. Merritt, 03-946, p. 28 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/17/04), 875 So.2d 80, 97 , [rev'd on other grounds, 03-946 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/13/04) , 884 So.2d 1283 ,] (quoting State v. Dempsey, 02-1867, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037, 1040 , writ denied, 03-1917 (La.6/25/04), 876 So.2d 823 ).

12008–2008
State v. Thibodeaux neutral
la · 2006
12007–2007
State v. Williams green
la · 1984
11989–1989

Statutes the citing opinions construe

LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:27 (8) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:42 (7) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:30 (5) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:60 (5) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:64 (5) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 46:1844 (5) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:62.2 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:81.2 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:95.1 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 15:438 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:10 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:30.1 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check