150 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2026 4 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Dortheygreen2 sentences2020See State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276, 1279 (La. 1993) (explaining that because the multiple offender hearing is not a trial, legal principles such as double jeopardy do not apply). 2019See also State v. Dorthey , 92-3120 (La. 9/10/93), 623 So.2d 1276 (explaining that because the multiple offender hearing is not a trial, legal principles such as double jeopardy do not apply). | 6 | 10 |
State v. Windhamgreen2 sentences2010Specifically, he did not object to the absence of the Boykin transcripts. *321 In State v. Windham, 93-686 (La.12/20/93), 630 So.2d 688, 688 (per cu-riam), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: In the absence of a contemporaneous objection at the multiple offender hearing, the defendant otherwise may not complain for the first time on review that the records of his guilty pleas introduced by the State at the multiple offender hearing did not reflect compliance with this court’s Boykin rules. 2000In State v. Windham, 630 So.2d 688 (La. 1993), the court stated: In the absence of a contemporaneous objection at the multiple offender hearing, the defendant otherwise may not complain for the first time on review that the records of his guilty pleas introduced by the state at the multiple offender hearing did not reflect compliance with this court's Boykin rules. | 6 | 9 |
State v. Crosbygreen2 sentences2021See Crosby, 338 So.2d at 588 ; Kendall, 231 So. 3d at 663; Smith, 206 So. 3d at 449 ; Nguyen, 2014 WL 7004023 at * 3. 2016See Crosby, supra; Schaefer, 704 So.2d at 304 ; State v. Perret, 628 So.2d 92 (La. | 4 | 5 |
State v. Jacksongreen2 sentences1993See also State v. Jackson, 389 So.2d 69, 70 (La.1980) (Lemmon, J., concurring) (The irregularity is waived on direct appeal, and the defendant is "relegated to post-conviction relief, at which he will have the burden of proving the invalidity of the convictions because of the ... lack of required Boykinization."). [11] But see State v. Johnson, 404 So.2d 239 (La. 1981) where this court stated that the state's burden of proof turns not only on whether the defendant has objected but also on the amount of time which had elapsed between the taking of the guilty plea and the collateral attack of th 1986He did nothing save admit that he was the same person, and in fact his lawyer “objected” to the multiple offender sentencing but was not given the opportunity to explain the basis of his objection. 1 State v. Talbert, 416 So.2d 68, 70 (La. 1982), cited by the state, is not controlling because there, “[w]hile the content of the printed [guilty plea] form is arguably deficient, defendant made no objection to its sufficiency at the multiple offender hearing and therefore cannot, for the first time on appeal, contend that the state failed to carry its burden of proving the validity of the plea.’.' | 2 | 3 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1988Thus, the sentences imposed are not apparently severe in relation to this offender or this offense; defendant's assignment of error has no merit. [2] We note, as well, that the state introduced two exhibits during the multiple offender hearing which consisted of defendant's "pen pack" (including his fingerprints), and a copy of his "rap sheet." In State v. Johnson, supra , the Court noted that the adjudication was invalid because the Court failed to advise the defendant of his rights with regard thereto and there was no admissible evidence offered by the state to prove that the defendant was t 1988Thus, the sentences imposed are not apparently severe in relation to this offender or this offense; defendant's assignment of error has no merit. [2] We note, as well, that the state introduced two exhibits during the multiple offender hearing which consisted of defendant's "pen pack" (including his fingerprints), and a copy of his "rap sheet." In State v. Johnson, supra , the Court noted that the adjudication was invalid because the Court failed to advise the defendant of his rights with regard thereto and there was no admissible evidence offered by the state to prove that the defendant was t | 1 | 12 |
State v. Martingreen2 sentences2018However, in Harris , the supreme court also explained that: Nevertheless, multiple offender proceedings "simply should not be equated (at least for purposes of determining the validity of an admission) to trials of guilt or innocence." State v. Martin, 427 So.2d 1182 , 1185 (La.1983). 1997In the earlier case of State v. Martin, 427 So.2d 1182 (La. 1983), the. court held that when the predicate conviction is based on a guilty plea, the guilty plea is proved only by a minute entry which is silent as to whether counsel was present, and the defendant does not object at the trial of the multiple offender hearing, then a presumption of regularity attaches to that silent minute entry; the defendant cannot challenge it for the first time on appeal. | 1 | 8 |
State v. Schaefergreen2 sentences2017State v. Schaefer, 97-465 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/25/97) , 704 So.2d 300, 304 . 2009“An unconditional plea of guilty, willingly and knowingly made, waives all non-jurisdictional defects and bars a defendant from later asserting on appeal that the state failed to produce sufficient proof at the multiple offender hearing.” State v. Schaefer, 97-465, p. 9 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/25/97), 704 So.2d 300, 304 . | 1 | 7 |
State v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2003The court held that in a multiple offender hearing, only those previous pleas of guilty may be used to enhance a sentence which are supported by a contemporaneous record which shows the “accused was informed of and made a knowing waiver of his right to jury trial, his right to confront his accusers, and his privilege against self incrimination. ” Id. 1984In the case of State v. Lewis, 367 So.2d 1155 (La.1979), (partially overruled on other grounds, 375 So.2d 1372 (La.1979)), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that: “In a multiple offender hearing, only those previous pleas of guilty may be used to enhance a sentence which are supported by a contemporaneous record of a Boykin examination demonstrating the free and voluntary nature of a plea of guilty with an articulated waiver of the constitutional rights required by Boykin v. Alabama.” In the more recent case of State v. Bland, 419 So.2d 1227 (La.1982), the Supreme Court found that the State h | 1 | 7 |
State v. Stottgreen2 sentences2010The Supreme Court stated that the Habitual Offender statute is simply an enhancement provision and explained that the ruling at a multiple offender hearing is not "a definitive judgment," but merely "a `finding' ancillary to the imposition of sentence." Id. at 1279 , quoting State v. Stott, 395 So.2d 714 (La.1981). 2010The Supreme Court stated that the Habitual Offender statute is simply an enhancement provision and explained that the ruling at a multiple offender hearing is not “a definitive judgment,” but merely “a ‘finding’ ancillary to the imposition of sentence.” Id. at 1279 , quoting State v. Stott, 395 So.2d 714 (La.1981). | 1 | 6 |
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2012Allen, supra; State v. Harris, 01-1380 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/30/02) , 817 So.2d 387, 389 ; State v. Evans, 02-1108, p. 6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/11/03), 844 So.2d 111, 115 . 2012In State v. Harris, 01-1380, p. 3 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/30/02), 817 So.2d 387, 389 , this Court found that a defendant waives his right to admit or deny the allegations against him in a multiple offender bill if he proceeds to the multiple offender hearing without objection. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Holdengreen2 sentences1993Thus, for these guilty pleas, we retained Lewis' fundamental requirement: that in a multiple offender hearing, the state must provide *774 a contemporaneous record which shows the "accused was informed of and made a knowing waiver of his right to jury trial, his right to confront his accusers, and his privilege against self-incrimination." Holden, Id. at 1375 (emphasis added). [9] In State v. Nelson, 379 So.2d 1072 (La. 1980), this court explained the State's burden of proof in an habitual offender proceeding where the defendant has not objected to the predicate for the State's evidence that t 1984In the case of State v. Lewis, 367 So.2d 1155 (La.1979), (partially overruled on other grounds, 375 So.2d 1372 (La.1979)), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that: “In a multiple offender hearing, only those previous pleas of guilty may be used to enhance a sentence which are supported by a contemporaneous record of a Boykin examination demonstrating the free and voluntary nature of a plea of guilty with an articulated waiver of the constitutional rights required by Boykin v. Alabama.” In the more recent case of State v. Bland, 419 So.2d 1227 (La.1982), the Supreme Court found that the State h | 1 | 3 |
State v. Mallettgreen2 sentences1992See also State v. Mallett, 552 So.2d 28 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1989), writs denied, State ex rel. 1992State v. Mallett, 552 So.2d 28 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989)." At the hearing on the motion to withdraw his guilty pleas in docket numbers 225,194 and 227,696, defendant admitted under oath that he was the individual convicted of the predicate offenses. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Desmondgreen2 sentences2013See State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983); State v. Desmond, 524 So.2d 147 (La.App. 4 Cir.1988). 1989See State v. Desmond, 524 So.2d 147 (La.App. 4th Cir.1988). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Perkinsgreen2 sentences2011Breaux, 00-236, 767 So.2d at 908 (citing State v. Neal, 99-1853 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/30/00) , 762 So.2d 281 ; and State v. Perkins, 99-1084 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/25/00) , 751 So.2d 403 ). 11sIn the present case, the transcript from the multiple offender hearing shows that the trial judge gave oral reasons to support its finding that defendant was a third felony offender. 2000See State v. Perkins, 99-1084 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/25/00) , 751 So.2d 403 . | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Mayergreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Santiagogreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Talbertgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Martingreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Langendorfergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Muhammadgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Alexandergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Cureauxgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Cureauxgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State Ex Rel. Richardson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Packnettgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lynchgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State ex rel. Packnett v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ruizgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Harris
green
2 sentences2018It is also correct that "[a]dmissions of identity at a multiple offender hearing implicate the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." State v. Harris, 95-900, p. 1 (La. 5/19/95), 654 So.2d 680 , 680. 2018It is also correct that "[a]dmissions of identity at a multiple offender hearing implicate the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." State v. Harris, 95-900, p. 1 (La. 5/19/95), 654 So.2d 680 , 680. | 8 | 1996–2018 |
State v. Shelton
green
2 sentences2016However, at the multiple offender hearing, Officer Jay Jacquet, an expert in fingerprint analysis, identified the certified package of Mr. Thomas’s forgery conviction as from 24th Judicial District Court, Jefferson Parish. . , See also State v. Pierce, 2011-0095, pp. 13-14 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/31/11) , 89 So.3d 1, 11-12 , on reh'g (3/28/12) (finding that defendant was denied the right to meaningful review of his multiple offender adjudication and sentence when the exhibits introduced at the hearing were absent from the record thereby requiring a vacation of the adjudication and his sentence). , T 2010Defendant asserts that rather than zealously representing defendant in his contention that his predicate plea was invalid because it was made with the understanding that it was a plea to a misdemeanor, trial counsel argued with defendant that his belief was unfounded, interrupting him and chastising him, and therefore failed to provide defendant with meaningful representation at the multiple offender hearing. 3 The State contends that defendant’s claim is -without merit because defendant has not demonstrated a constitutional deficiency within the multiple bill or articulated how the State fail | 8 | 1993–2016 |
Boykin v. Alabama
green
2 sentences1982In regard to his conviction of driving while intoxicated, defendant argued in the trial court that he was never given an examination demonstrating the free and voluntary nature of a plea of guilty with an articulated waiver of his constitutional rights, as required by Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), and, in connection with a multiple offender hearing, as required for those pleas of guilty used to enhance a sentence by State v. Lewis, 367 So.2d 1155 (La.1979). 1982In regard to his conviction of driving while intoxicated, defendant argued in the trial court that he was never given an examination demonstrating the free and voluntary nature of a plea of guilty with an articulated waiver of his constitutional rights, as required by Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), and, in connection with a multiple offender hearing, as required for those pleas of guilty used to enhance a sentence by State v. Lewis, 367 So.2d 1155 (La.1979). | 6 | 1979–2006 |
State v. Bell
green
2 sentences2000App. 5 Cir.2/25/98), 709 So.2d 921, 926 , writ denied, 98-0792 (La.9/16/98), 721 So.2d 477 , this Court held that the defendant had waived his complaint that the arrest registers were improperly admitted because he failed to object at the multiple offender hearing. 2000State v. Bell, 97-1134 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/25/98) , 709 So.2d 921, 926 , writ denied, 98-792 (La.9/16/98), 721 So.2d 477 . [4At the multiple bill hearing, Captain Merril Bolling, a fingerprint identification expert, testified that the defendant’s fingerprints taken in court at the multiple offender hearing on November 5, 1999 (State Exhibit 1) matched those fingerprints on an arrest register from a Jefferson Parish arrest of October 28, 1992 for possession of a stolen vehicle. | 6 | 1999–2000 |
State v. Bell
green
2 sentences2000App. 5 Cir.2/25/98), 709 So.2d 921, 926 , writ denied, 98-0792 (La.9/16/98), 721 So.2d 477 , this Court held that the defendant had waived his complaint that the arrest registers were improperly admitted because he failed to object at the multiple offender hearing. 2000State v. Bell, 97-1134 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/25/98) , 709 So.2d 921, 926 , writ denied, 98-792 (La.9/16/98), 721 So.2d 477 . [4At the multiple bill hearing, Captain Merril Bolling, a fingerprint identification expert, testified that the defendant’s fingerprints taken in court at the multiple offender hearing on November 5, 1999 (State Exhibit 1) matched those fingerprints on an arrest register from a Jefferson Parish arrest of October 28, 1992 for possession of a stolen vehicle. | 6 | 1999–2000 |
State v. Winfrey
green
2 sentences2001In State v. Winfrey, 97-427 (La.App. 5 Cir 10/28/97), 703 So.2d 63, 80 , the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal addressed the procedure for determining the burden of proof in a multiple offender hearing: If the defendant denies the multiple offender allegations then the burden is on the State to prove (1) the existence of a prior guilty plea, and (2) that defendant was represented by counsel when the plea was taken. 2001In State v. Winfrey, 97-427 (La.App. 5 Cir.10/28/97), 703 So.2d 63, 80 , writ denied, 98-0264 (La.6/19/98), 719 So.2d 481 , the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal set out the procedure for determining the burden of proof in a multiple offender hearing: If the defendant denies the multiple offender allegations then the burden is on the State to prove (1) the existence of a prior guilty plea, and (2) that defendant was represented by counsel when the plea was taken. | 4 | 2000–2001 |
State v. Perret
neutral
2 sentences2016See Crosby, supra; Schaefer, 704 So.2d at 304 ; State v. Perret, 628 So.2d 92 (La. 2014See State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976); State v. Lavigne, 95-0204 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/22/96) , 675 So.2d 771 , writs denied, 96-1738 (La.1/10/97), 685 So.2d 140 ; State v. Perret, 628 So.2d 92 (La.App. 5 Cir.1993). | 3 | 1997–2016 |
State v. Winfrey
green
2 sentences2001In State v. Winfrey, 97-427 (La.App. 5 Cir.10/28/97), 703 So.2d 63, 80 , writ denied, 98-0264 (La.6/19/98), 719 So.2d 481 , the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal set out the procedure for determining the burden of proof in a multiple offender hearing: If the defendant denies the multiple offender allegations then the burden is on the State to prove (1) the existence of a prior guilty plea, and (2) that defendant was represented by counsel when the plea was taken. 2000In State v. Winfrey, 97-427, p. 30 (La.App. 5 Cir 10/28/97), 703 So.2d 63, 80 , writ denied, 98-0264 (La.6/19/98), 719 So.2d 481 , the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, citing State v. Conrad, 94-232, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/16/94), 646 So.2d 1062, 1064 , writ denied, 94-3076 (La.4/7/95), 652 So.2d 1345 , set out the procedure for determining the burden of proof in a multiple offender hearing: If the defendant denies the multiple offender allegations then the burden is on the State to prove (1) the existence of a prior guilty plea, and (2) that defendant was represented by counsel when the ple | 3 | 2000–2001 |
State v. Tucker
green
2 sentences1992In State v. Tucker, 405 So.2d 506 (La. 1981), the Louisiana Supreme Court considered a plea form and a minute entry admitted at the multiple offender hearing. 1988In State v. Tucker, 405 So.2d 506 (La.1981) the Supreme Court found there was a valid waiver at a multiple offender hearing as to a predicate offense when the State at the multiple offender hearing introduced only the minute entry and the defendant’s guilty plea form. | 3 | 1988–1992 |
State ex rel. Jackson v. State
green
2 sentences2025As it pertains to a multiple offender hearing, however, such proceedings “should not be considered part of the record for purposes of the error patent review[;] a defendant must assign as error any perceived defect in the 24-KA-487 5 proceedings to preserve appellate review of the claimed error.” State v. Moore, 2012-0102, p. 2 (La. 5/25/12), 90 So.3d 384 , 385 (per curiam). 2014Because the State proved the existence of a prior guilty plea and that Defendant was represented by counsel at the time, and Defendant failed to prove an infringement on his rights or a procedural irregularity, we find the State established by competent evidence that Defendant was a second felony offender. 2 |fiWe note that under the Louisiana Supreme Court ruling in State v. Moore, 12-102 (La.5/25/12), 90 So.3d 384 (per curiam ), we do not conduct an error patent review on a multiple offender hearing. | 2 | 2014–2025 |
State v. Lavigne
green
2 sentences2014See State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976); State v. Lavigne, 95-0204 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/22/96) , 675 So.2d 771 , writs denied, 96-1738 (La.1/10/97), 685 So.2d 140 ; State v. Perret, 628 So.2d 92 (La.App. 5 Cir.1993). 1997See State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976); State v. Perret, 628 So.2d 92 (La.App. 5 Cir.1993); and State v. Lavigne, 675 So.2d 771 (La.App. 4 Cir.1996), writs denied, 685 So.2d 140 (La. 1997). *305 ASSIGNMENT NO. 6 Schaefer contends that the trial judge did not inform him of the prescriptive period for post conviction relief. | 2 | 1997–2014 |
State v. Lavigne
green
2 sentences2014See State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976); State v. Lavigne, 95-0204 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/22/96) , 675 So.2d 771 , writs denied, 96-1738 (La.1/10/97), 685 So.2d 140 ; State v. Perret, 628 So.2d 92 (La.App. 5 Cir.1993). 1997See State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976); State v. Perret, 628 So.2d 92 (La.App. 5 Cir.1993); and State v. Lavigne, 675 So.2d 771 (La.App. 4 Cir.1996), writs denied, 685 So.2d 140 (La. 1997). *305 ASSIGNMENT NO. 6 Schaefer contends that the trial judge did not inform him of the prescriptive period for post conviction relief. | 2 | 1997–2014 |
State v. Evans
neutral
2 sentences2012Allen, supra; State v. Harris, 01-1380 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/30/02) , 817 So.2d 387, 389 ; State v. Evans, 02-1108, p. 6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/11/03), 844 So.2d 111, 115 . 2011Allen , 93-838 at 16, 638 So.2d at 403 ; State v. Harris, 01-1380 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/30/02) , 817 So.2d 387, 389 ; State v. Evans, 02-1108 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/11/03) , 844 So.2d 111, 115 . | 2 | 2011–2012 |
State v. Allen
green
2 sentences2011Allen , 93-838 at 16, 638 So.2d at 403 ; State v. Harris, 01-1380 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/30/02) , 817 So.2d 387, 389 ; State v. Evans, 02-1108 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/11/03) , 844 So.2d 111, 115 . 2002State v. Allen, 93-838 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/31/94) , 638 So.2d 394, 403 . | 2 | 2002–2011 |
State v. Girod
green
2 sentences2009Judge Cannella wrote: “Therefore, I dissent from the majority's reliance on State v. Girod, 96-660 (La.App. 5th Cir. 11/25/97), 703 So.2d 771 , writ denied, 98-244 (La.6/19/98), 719 So.2d 480 and State v. Radacker, 98-434 (La.App. 5th Cir. 11/25/98), 722 So.2d 1093 , writ denied, 99-0031 (La.4/30/99), 741 So.2d 11 , in support of the refusal to consider defendant's arguments, since they directly conflict with other cases of this circuit which reach a contrary result. 1999LSA-R.S. 15:529.1(D)(1)(b); State v. Girod, 96-660, pp. 10-11 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/25/97) , 703 So.2d 771, 776-777 , writ denied, 98-0244 (La.6/19/98), 719 So.2d 480 , State v. Radacker, 98-434 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/25/98) , 722 So.2d 1093 . [1] The State requests that this Court correct the defendant's illegally lenient sentence. [2] However, we need not address this issue, because an error patent exists that requires that the defendant's enhanced sentence is null and void. | 2 | 1999–2009 |
State v. Girod
green
2 sentences2009Judge Cannella wrote: “Therefore, I dissent from the majority's reliance on State v. Girod, 96-660 (La.App. 5th Cir. 11/25/97), 703 So.2d 771 , writ denied, 98-244 (La.6/19/98), 719 So.2d 480 and State v. Radacker, 98-434 (La.App. 5th Cir. 11/25/98), 722 So.2d 1093 , writ denied, 99-0031 (La.4/30/99), 741 So.2d 11 , in support of the refusal to consider defendant's arguments, since they directly conflict with other cases of this circuit which reach a contrary result. 1999LSA-R.S. 15:529.1(D)(1)(b); State v. Girod, 96-660, pp. 10-11 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/25/97) , 703 So.2d 771, 776-777 , writ denied, 98-0244 (La.6/19/98), 719 So.2d 480 , State v. Radacker, 98-434 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/25/98) , 722 So.2d 1093 . [1] The State requests that this Court correct the defendant's illegally lenient sentence. [2] However, we need not address this issue, because an error patent exists that requires that the defendant's enhanced sentence is null and void. | 2 | 1999–2009 |
| State v. Radacker green | 2 | 1999–2009 |
| State v. Hollins green | 2 | 2000–2003 |
| State v. Merschal green | 2 | 1996–2001 |
| State v. Jackson green | 2 | 1992–1995 |
| State v. Jefferson green | 2 | 1982–1993 |
| State v. Nelson green | 2 | 1986–1993 |
| State v. Poole neutral | 2 | 1991–1992 |
| State v. Coleman green | 2 | 1990–1992 |
| State v. Buckley green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Smith neutral | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Pierce green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Stanfield green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Cureaux neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Nguyen green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Tingle v. American Home Assurance Company green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Woods green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| In Re Martin green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Cambrice green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Holliday green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Coleman green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Hartshorn neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Breaux green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Neal green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Young green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.