discussed standard in Louisiana

2018Affirming the sentence, this court noted: In 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 (citations omitted), this court discussed the factors it would consider in order to determine whether a sentence shocks the sense of justice or makes no meaningful contribution to acceptable penal goals:In deciding whether a sentence is shocking or makes no meaningful contribution to acceptable penal goals, an appellate court may consider several factors including the nature of the offense, the circumstances of the offender,

2013Furthermore, in 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 , this court discussed the factors it would consider in order to determine whether a sentence shocks the sense of justice or makes no meaningful contribution to acceptable penal goals: In deciding whether a sentence is shocking or makes no meaningful contribution to acceptable penal goals, an appellate court may consider several factors including the nature of the offense, the circumstances of the offender, the legislative purpose behind the punishment an

2018Affirming the sentence, this court noted: In 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 (citations omitted), this court discussed the factors it would consider in order to determine whether a sentence shocks the sense of justice or makes no meaningful contribution to acceptable penal goals:In deciding whether a sentence is shocking or makes no meaningful contribution to acceptable penal goals, an appellate court may consider several factors including the nature of the offense, the circumstances of the offender,

2013Furthermore, in 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 , this court discussed the factors it would consider in order to determine whether a sentence shocks the sense of justice or makes no meaningful contribution to acceptable penal goals: In deciding whether a sentence is shocking or makes no meaningful contribution to acceptable penal goals, an appellate court may consider several factors including the nature of the offense, the circumstances of the offender, the legislative purpose behind the punishment an

2013This court discussed the standard of review applicable to claims of excessiveness in State v. Whatley, 03-1275, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/3/04), 867 So.2d 955, 958-59 , as follows: The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and La.

2013This court discussed the standard of review applicable to claims of ex-cessiveness in State v. Whatley, 03-1275, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/3/04), 867 So.2d 955, 958-59 , as follows: The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and La.

2000In Tate , this court further noted: “In Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990), the Court held that evidence found in plain view need not have been found “inadvertently” in order to fall within this exception to the warrant requirement, although in most cases evidence seized pursuant to this exception will have been discovered inadvertently.” Tate at 917 , |4In this ease, the officer attempted to make a traffic stop.

2000In Tate , this court further noted: “In Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990), the Court held that evidence found in plain view need not have been found “inadvertently” in order to fall within this exception to the warrant requirement, although in most cases evidence seized pursuant to this exception will have been discovered inadvertently.” Tate at 917 , |4In this ease, the officer attempted to make a traffic stop.

2000In State v. Smith, 96-2161 p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/3/98), 715 So.2d 547, 549 , this court discussed this exception: In order for an object to be lawfully seized pursuant to the "plain view" exception to the Fourth Amendment, "(1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband." State v. Hernandez, 410 So.2d 1381, 1383 (La.1982); State v. Tate, 623 So.2d 908, 917 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied

2000In State v. Smith, 96-2161 (La.App. 4 Cir.6/3/98), 715 So.2d 547, 549 , this court discussed the exception: In order for an object to be lawfully seized pursuant to the “plain view” exception to the Fourth Amendment, “(1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband.” State v. Hernandez, 410 So.2d 1381, 1383 (La.1982); State v. Tate, 623 So.2d 908, 917 (La.App. 4 th Cir.), writ denied 629

2000In State v. Smith, 96-2161 p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/3/98), 715 So.2d 547, 549 , this court discussed this exception: In order for an object to be lawfully seized pursuant to the "plain view" exception to the Fourth Amendment, "(1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband." State v. Hernandez, 410 So.2d 1381, 1383 (La.1982); State v. Tate, 623 So.2d 908, 917 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied

2000In State v. Smith, 96-2161 (La.App. 4 Cir.6/3/98), 715 So.2d 547, 549 , this court discussed the exception: In order for an object to be lawfully seized pursuant to the “plain view” exception to the Fourth Amendment, “(1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband.” State v. Hernandez, 410 So.2d 1381, 1383 (La.1982); State v. Tate, 623 So.2d 908, 917 (La.App. 4 th Cir.), writ denied 629

2018Smith v. Louisiana Dep't. of Corrections , 93-1305 (La. 2/28/94); 633 So.2d 129 .

2013Smith v. Louisiana Dep’t of Corrections, 93-1305 (La.2/28/94); 633 So.2d 129 .

2018LAW AND DISCUSSION Standard of Review This court discussed the standard of review to be utilized in workers' compensation cases in LeBlanc v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 15-558, pp. 10-11 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/4/15) , 177 So.3d 1125 , 1132-33, noting: The standard of review in a workers' compensation claim is well established and was succinctly stated in Bracey v. City of Alexandria , 13-16, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/5/13), 115 So.3d 1211 , 1214-15, writ denied , 13-1934 (La. 11/8/13), 125 So.3d 455 (quoting Foster v. Rabalais Masonry, Inc. , 01-1394, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/6/02), 811 So.2d 1160 ,

2013This court discussed the standard of review to be employed in workers’ compensation cases in Foster v. Rabalais Masonry, Inc., 01-1394, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/6/02), 811 So.2d 1160, 1162, writ denied, 02-1164 (La.6/14/02), 818 So.2d 784 : Factual findings in workers’ compensation cases are subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of appellate review.

2009In State v. Mims, 97-1500, pp. 44-45 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/21/00) , 769 So.2d 44, 72 , this court discussed the standard to be used to evaluate an effective assistance of counsel claim: Generally, the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is more properly ad *1189 dressed in an application for post-conviction relief filed in the trial court, where a full evidentiary hearing can be conducted.

2008In State v. Mims, 97-1500 pp. 44-45 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/21/00) , 769 So.2d 44, 72 , this Court discussed the standard to be used to evaluate an effective assistance of counsel claim: Generally, the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is more properly addressed in an application for post-conviction relief filed in the trial court, where a full evidentiary hearing can be conducted.

2019State v. Sepulvado , 367 So.2d 762 (La.1979).

2019State v. Sepulvado , 367 So.2d 762 (La.1979).

2018While a comparison of sentences imposed for similar crimes may provide some insight, "it is well settled that sentences must be individualized to the particular offender and to the particular offense committed." Additionally, *1085 it is within the purview of the trial court to particularize the sentence because the trial judge "remains in the best position to assess the aggravating and mitigating circumstances presented by each case." "Generally, maximum sentences are reserved for those cases that involve the most serious violations of the offense charged and the worst type of offender." Stat

2012While a comparison of sentences imposed for similar crimes may provide some insight, “it is well settled that sentences must be individualized to the particular offender and to the particular offense committed.” Additionally, it is within the purview of the trial court to particularize the sentence because the trial judge “remains in the best position to assess the aggravating and mitigating circumstances presented by each case.” |/‘Generally, maximum sentences are reserved for those cases that involve the most serious violations of the offense charged and the worst type of offender.” State v.

2017In State v. Williams , 13-497, pp. 3-5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/13), 124 So.3d 1236 , 1239-40, writ denied , 13-2774 (La. 5/16/14), 139 So.3d 1024 , this court discussed the standard of review for sufficiency of evidence, as follows: In State v. Bryant , 12-233 (La. 10/16/12), 101 So.3d 429 , the Louisiana supreme court addressed the sufficiency of the evidence claims, reiterating that the appellate review of such claims is controlled by the standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

2017In State v. Williams , 13-497, pp. 3-5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/13), 124 So.3d 1236 , 1239-40, writ denied , 13-2774 (La. 5/16/14), 139 So.3d 1024 , this court discussed the standard of review for sufficiency of evidence, as follows: In State v. Bryant , 12-233 (La. 10/16/12), 101 So.3d 429 , the Louisiana supreme court addressed the sufficiency of the evidence claims, reiterating that the appellate review of such claims is controlled by the standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

2015State v. Lomax, 09-1129, p. 9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/24/10), 35 So.3d 396, 401 (citation omitted). |12In State v. Deruise, 98-541, p. 7 (La.4/3/01), 802 So.2d 1224, 1232 , the Court discussed the standard for reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to sever counts: A motion to sever is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the court’s ruling should not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion.

2014The Court discussed the standard for reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to sever counts in State v. Deruise, 98-0541, p. 7 (La.4/3/01), 802 So.2d 1224 , 1232: A motion to sever is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the court’s ruling should not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. [State v.] Brooks, 541 So.2d [801] at 804 [ (La.1989) ] (citing State v. Williams, 418 So.2d 562, 564 (La.1982)).

2013State v. Batiste, 05-1571, p. 7 (La.10/17/06), 939 So.2d 1245, 1250 .

2013State v. Batiste, 05-1571, p. 7 (La.10/17/06), 939 So.2d 1245, 1250 .

2013In State v. Scott, 06-1610, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/25/07), 958 So.2d 725, 729 , this court discussed the standard for evaluating a constitutional speedy trial claim: The standard for analyzing a defendant’s claim that his constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated is the four factor test enunciated in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 531-32 , 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2192-93 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 101 ] (1972), which is as follows: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant’s assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and (4) the prejudice to the defendant.

2013In State v. Scott, 2006-1610, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/25/07), 958 So.2d 725, 729 , this Court discussed the standard for evaluating a constitutional speedy trial claim: The standard for analyzing a defendant’s claim that his constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated is the four factor test enunciated in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 531-32 , 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2192-93 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 101 ] (1972), which is as follows: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant’s 19assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and (4) the prejudice to the defendant.

2008State v. Bright, XXXX-XXXX (La. 4/11/00), 776 So.2d 1134, 1147 .

2008State v. Bright, XXXX-XXXX (La.4/11/00); 776 So.2d 1134, 1147 .

2008App. 4 Cir. 5/10/06), 931 So.2d 1157, 1162 , this Court discussed the standard to be used when a defendant disputes his identity as the perpetrator of an offense: When a key issue at trial is whether the defendant was the perpetrator of the crime, the State is required to negate any reasonable probability of misidentification in order to carry its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

2008In State v. Holmes, 05 -1248, pp. 8-9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/10/06), 931 So.2d 1157, 1162 , the court discussed the standard to be used when a defendant disputes his identity as the perpetrator of an offense: When a key issue at trial is whether the defendant was the perpetrator of the crime, the State is required to negate any reasonable probability of misidentification in order to carry its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

2007Ray McDermott, 99-1866 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/25/00) , 772 So.2d 828 , this Court discussed the standard for reviewing an appeal of a motion for summary judgment.

2007Ray McDermott S.A., 99-1866 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/25/00) , 772 So.2d 828 , this Court discussed the standard for reviewing an appeal of a motion for summary judgment.

2001In State v. Sneed, 95-2326, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/11/96), 680 So.2d 1237, 1238 , unit denied 96-2450 (La.3/7/97), 689 So.2d 1371 , this court discussed the standard for determining if officers have reasonable suspicion to support an investigatory stop: 14An individual may be stopped and questioned by police if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person “is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense.” La.Code Crim.

2001In State v. Sneed, 95-2326, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/11/96), 680 So.2d 1237, 1238 , this Court discussed the standard for determining if officers have reasonable suspicion to support an investigatory stop: An individual may be stopped and questioned by police if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person “is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense.” La.Code Crim.

2014This court recently discussed in detail an appellate court’s review of a trial court’s grant of summary judgment stating as follows: In the case of Jagneaux v. Frohn, 11-461, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/5/11), 74 So.3d 309, 310-11 , this court discussed the standard of review and the law applicable to motions for summary judgment as follows: Our Louisiana Supreme Court has instructed us on the standard of review relative to a motion for summary judgment as follows: A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used when there is no genuine issue of material fact for all or part of the re

2014In the case of Jagneaux v. Frohn, 11-461, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/5/11), 74 So.3d 309, 310-11 , this court discussed the standard of review and the law applicable to motions for summary judgment as follows: Our Louisiana Supreme Court has instructed us on the standard of review relative to a motion for summary judgment as follows: A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used when there is no genuine issue of material fact for all or part of the relief prayed for by a litigant.

2009State v. Smith, 97-2221, p. 14 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/7/99), 734 So.2d 826, 834 , writ denied, 99-1128 (La.10/1/99), 747 So.2d 1138 .

2008State v. Smith, 97-2221, p. 14 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/7/99), 734 So.2d 826, 834 , writ denied, 99-1128 (La.10/1/99), 747 So.2d 1138 .

2009State v. Smith, 97-2221, p. 14 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/7/99), 734 So.2d 826, 834 , writ denied, 99-1128 (La.10/1/99), 747 So.2d 1138 .

2008State v. Smith, 97-2221, p. 14 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/7/99), 734 So.2d 826, 834 , writ denied, 99-1128 (La.10/1/99), 747 So.2d 1138 .

2001In State v. Sneed, 95-2326, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/11/96), 680 So.2d 1237, 1238 , unit denied 96-2450 (La.3/7/97), 689 So.2d 1371 , this court discussed the standard for determining if officers have reasonable suspicion to support an investigatory stop: 14An individual may be stopped and questioned by police if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person “is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense.” La.Code Crim.

2001In State v. Watson, 99-0243 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/3/00) , 763 So.2d 713 , this court reaffirmed the standard for determining whether the police have a basis for the detention of a defendant and also reviewed cases involving facts similar to the instant case: In State v. Sneed, 95-2326, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/11/96), 680 So.2d 1237, 1238 , writ denied, 96-2450 (La. 3/7/97), 689 So.2d 1371 , this court discussed the standard for determining if officers have reasonable suspicion to support an investigatory stop: An individual may be stopped and questioned by police if the officer has a reasonable sus

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW In Allain v. Tripple B Holding, LLC , 13-673, pp. 9-10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/13), 128 So.3d 1278 , 1285, this court discussed the standard an appellate court applies in reviewing an exception of prescription: Prescription is a peremptory exception which is provided for in La.Code Civ.P. art. 927.

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW In Allain v. Tripple B Holding, LLC , 13-673, pp. 9-10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/13), 128 So.3d 1278 , 1285, this court discussed the standard an appellate court applies in reviewing an exception of prescription: Prescription is a peremptory exception which is provided for in La.Code Civ.P. art. 927.