Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen2 sentences2010The Apprendi Rule The defendant contends that the trial judge used “inventive charging.” However, the charges that were approved by the parties at trial were obviously based on an interpretation of Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 , 119 S.Ct. 1215 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999), Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and the Apprendi progeny. | lfi“[U]nder the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the notice and jury trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment, any fact (other than prior conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must 2010The Apprendi Rule The defendant contends that the trial judge used “inventive charging.” However, the charges that were approved by the parties at trial were obviously based on an interpretation of Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 , 119 S.Ct. 1215 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999), Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and the Apprendi progeny. | lfi“[U]nder the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the notice and jury trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment, any fact (other than prior conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must | 1 | 4 |
Neder v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2025In Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999), the United States Supreme Court held that “a [jury] instruction that omits an element of the offense does not necessarily render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence,” and harmless error analysis may be appropriate. 2025In Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999), the United States Supreme Court held that “a [jury] instruction that omits an element of the offense does not necessarily render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence,” and harmless error analysis may be appropriate. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Mylesgreen2 sentences2005Accord, State v. Myles, 04-434 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/12/04) , 887 So.2d 118, 124 , acknowledged the above rule, but addressed a defendant's Apprendi challenge to his habitual offender finding in an abundance of caution. 2005Accord, State v. Myles, 04-434 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/12/04) , 887 So.2d 118, 124 , acknowledged the above rule, but addressed a defendant's Apprendi challenge to his habitual offender finding in an abundance of caution. | 1 | 3 |
Jones v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2010The Apprendi Rule The defendant contends that the trial judge used “inventive charging.” However, the charges that were approved by the parties at trial were obviously based on an interpretation of Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 , 119 S.Ct. 1215 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999), Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and the Apprendi progeny. | lfi“[U]nder the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the notice and jury trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment, any fact (other than prior conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must 2010The Apprendi Rule The defendant contends that the trial judge used “inventive charging.” However, the charges that were approved by the parties at trial were obviously based on an interpretation of Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 , 119 S.Ct. 1215 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999), Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and the Apprendi progeny. | lfi“[U]nder the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the notice and jury trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment, any fact (other than prior conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must | 1 | 1 |
State v. Walkergreen2 sentences2004See State v. Walker, 2001-51, p. 10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/30/01), 789 So.2d 86, 91 , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.5/10/02), 815 So.2d 834 (finding no Apprendi violation because the defendant's penalty was not increased beyond the maximum term prescribed by the armed robbery statute); see also State v. Palermo, 2000-2488, p. 2 (La.5/31/02), 818 So.2d 745, 755 (Johnson, J., dissenting)(collecting cases)(noting that Apprendi rule applies only when "the disputed `fact' enlarges the applicable statutory maximum and the defendant's sentence exceeds the original maximum"). 2004See State v. Walker, 2001-51, p. 10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/30/01), 789 So.2d 86, 91 , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.5/10/02), 815 So.2d 834 (finding no Apprendi violation because the defendant's penalty was not increased beyond the maximum term prescribed by the armed robbery statute); see also State v. Palermo, 2000-2488, p. 2 (La.5/31/02), 818 So.2d 745, 755 (Johnson, J., dissenting)(collecting cases)(noting that Apprendi rule applies only when "the disputed `fact' enlarges the applicable statutory maximum and the defendant's sentence exceeds the original maximum"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Palermogreen2 sentences2004Ms. Armour contends that the same analysis and application of the Apprendi rule as the Louisiana Supreme Court performed in State v. Palermo, 2000-2488 (La.5/31/02), 818 So.2d 745 , to find La. 2004Ms. Armour contends that the same analysis and application of the Apprendi rule as the Louisiana Supreme Court performed in State v. Palermo, 2000-2488 (La.5/31/02), 818 So.2d 745 , to find La. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Walkergreen2 sentences2004See State v. Walker, 2001-51, p. 10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/30/01), 789 So.2d 86, 91 , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.5/10/02), 815 So.2d 834 (finding no Apprendi violation because the defendant's penalty was not increased beyond the maximum term prescribed by the armed robbery statute); see also State v. Palermo, 2000-2488, p. 2 (La.5/31/02), 818 So.2d 745, 755 (Johnson, J., dissenting)(collecting cases)(noting that Apprendi rule applies only when "the disputed `fact' enlarges the applicable statutory maximum and the defendant's sentence exceeds the original maximum"). 2004See State v. Walker, 2001-51, p. 10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/30/01), 789 So.2d 86, 91 , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.5/10/02), 815 So.2d 834 (finding no Apprendi violation because the defendant's penalty was not increased beyond the maximum term prescribed by the armed robbery statute); see also State v. Palermo, 2000-2488, p. 2 (La.5/31/02), 818 So.2d 745, 755 (Johnson, J., dissenting)(collecting cases)(noting that Apprendi rule applies only when "the disputed `fact' enlarges the applicable statutory maximum and the defendant's sentence exceeds the original maximum"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hittgreen2 sentences2004State v. Hitt, 273 Kan. 224 , 42 P.3d 732, 736 (2002), cert. denied 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 962 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003). 2004State v. Hitt, 273 Kan. 224 , 42 P.3d 732, 736 (2002), cert. denied 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 962 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Washington v. Recuenco
green
2 sentences2013In Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006), the Supreme Court applied Neder to an Apprendi violation. 2013In Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006), the Supreme Court applied Neder to an Apprendi violation. | 2 | 2010–2013 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2009In resolving the question, this court noted that after Apprendi , courts confronted with the question of whether a juvenile adjudication falls within the Apprendi exception for “prior convictions” have been divided on the issue, resulting in “two reasonable schools of thought.” Brown , OS-2788 at 13, 879 So.2d at 1285 . 2009In resolving the question, this court noted that after Apprendi , courts confronted with the question of whether a juvenile adjudication falls within the Apprendi exception for “prior convictions” have been divided on the issue, resulting in “two reasonable schools of thought.” Brown , OS-2788 at 13, 879 So.2d at 1285 . | 2 | 2007–2009 |
State v. Raev
green
2 sentences2005In support, the State cites State v. Lee, XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/02/03), 844 So.2d 970 , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.10/10/03), 855 So.2d 330 , in which this court found the firearm sentencing enhancement provision constitutional under Apprendi . 2005In support, the State cites State v. Lee, 2002-1793 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/02/03) , 844 So.2d 970 , writ denied, 2003-1247 (La.10/10/03), 855 So.2d 330 , in which this court found the firearm sentencing enhancement provision constitutional under Apprendi . | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Lee
green
2 sentences2005In support, the State cites State v. Lee, 2002-1793 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/02/03) , 844 So.2d 970 , writ denied, 2003-1247 (La.10/10/03), 855 So.2d 330 , in which this court found the firearm sentencing enhancement provision constitutional under Apprendi . 2005In so finding, we emphasized the repeated use in the firearm sentencing enhancement provision of the phrase “mandatory minimum sentence.” In this connection, we noted as illustrative the reference to that phrase in Article 893.3(G), which provides that “[a] defendant sentenced under the provisions of this Article shall not be eligible for parole during the period of the mandatory minimum sentence.” Lee, 2002-1793 at p. 49, 844 So.2d at 1000 (quoting La.C.Cr.P. art. 893.3(G)(emphasis supplied)). | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Ardoin
neutral
2 sentences2013The Third Circuit in State v. Ardoin, 10-1018, pp. 31-32 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/9/11) , 58 So.3d 1025, 1044 , writ denied, 11-0653 (La.10/14/11), 74 So.3d 218 , found a similar error to be an Apprendi violation but also found that it constituted harmless error. 2013The Third Circuit in State v. Ardoin, 10-1018, pp. 31-32 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/9/11) , 58 So.3d 1025, 1044 , writ denied, 11-0653 (La.10/14/11), 74 So.3d 218 , found a similar error to be an Apprendi violation but also found that it constituted harmless error. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Ardoin
neutral
2 sentences2013The Third Circuit in State v. Ardoin, 10-1018, pp. 31-32 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/9/11) , 58 So.3d 1025, 1044 , writ denied, 11-0653 (La.10/14/11), 74 So.3d 218 , found a similar error to be an Apprendi violation but also found that it constituted harmless error. 2013The Third Circuit in State v. Ardoin, 10-1018, pp. 31-32 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/9/11) , 58 So.3d 1025, 1044 , writ denied, 11-0653 (La.10/14/11), 74 So.3d 218 , found a similar error to be an Apprendi violation but also found that it constituted harmless error. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Fasola
neutral
1 sentence2009In State v. Young, 04-1318, pp. 13-14 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/26/05) , 902 So.2d 461 , 470 and State v. Fasola, 04-902, p. 18 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/29/05), 901 So.2d 533, 544 , writ denied, 05-1069 (La.12/9/05), 916 So.2d 1055 , this court declined to consider the defendants’ constitutional arguments that the conviction based on a non-unanimous verdict was invalid absent an objection raised in the trial court. |9Both cases relied on the Louisiana Supreme Court case of State v. Williams, 02-1030, p. 7 (La.10/15/02), 830 So.2d 984, 988 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Fasola
neutral
1 sentence2009In State v. Young, 04-1318, pp. 13-14 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/26/05) , 902 So.2d 461 , 470 and State v. Fasola, 04-902, p. 18 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/29/05), 901 So.2d 533, 544 , writ denied, 05-1069 (La.12/9/05), 916 So.2d 1055 , this court declined to consider the defendants’ constitutional arguments that the conviction based on a non-unanimous verdict was invalid absent an objection raised in the trial court. |9Both cases relied on the Louisiana Supreme Court case of State v. Williams, 02-1030, p. 7 (La.10/15/02), 830 So.2d 984, 988 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Young
green
1 sentence2009In State v. Young, 04-1318, pp. 13-14 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/26/05) , 902 So.2d 461 , 470 and State v. Fasola, 04-902, p. 18 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/29/05), 901 So.2d 533, 544 , writ denied, 05-1069 (La.12/9/05), 916 So.2d 1055 , this court declined to consider the defendants’ constitutional arguments that the conviction based on a non-unanimous verdict was invalid absent an objection raised in the trial court. |9Both cases relied on the Louisiana Supreme Court case of State v. Williams, 02-1030, p. 7 (La.10/15/02), 830 So.2d 984, 988 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence2009In State v. Young, 04-1318, pp. 13-14 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/26/05) , 902 So.2d 461 , 470 and State v. Fasola, 04-902, p. 18 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/29/05), 901 So.2d 533, 544 , writ denied, 05-1069 (La.12/9/05), 916 So.2d 1055 , this court declined to consider the defendants’ constitutional arguments that the conviction based on a non-unanimous verdict was invalid absent an objection raised in the trial court. |9Both cases relied on the Louisiana Supreme Court case of State v. Williams, 02-1030, p. 7 (La.10/15/02), 830 So.2d 984, 988 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Inversiones Errazuriz Limitada, Fka Inversiones Errazuriz S. A. v. State Street Bank & Trust Co
green
2 sentences2007He also cites State v. Brown, 03-2788 (La. 7/6/04), 879 So.2d 1276, 1288-1289 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1177 , 125 S.Ct. 1310 , 161 L.Ed.2d 161 (2005), in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a prior juvenile adjudication of delinquency, in which the juvenile does not have the right to a jury trial, does not qualify as a "prior conviction" for purposes of the Apprendi exception, and thus, it is unconstitutional to adjudicate a defendant a habitual offender based upon a prior juvenile adjudication. 2007He also cites State v. Brown, 03-2788 (La. 7/6/04), 879 So.2d 1276, 1288-1289 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1177 , 125 S.Ct. 1310 , 161 L.Ed.2d 161 (2005), in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a prior juvenile adjudication of delinquency, in which the juvenile does not have the right to a jury trial, does not qualify as a "prior conviction" for purposes of the Apprendi exception, and thus, it is unconstitutional to adjudicate a defendant a habitual offender based upon a prior juvenile adjudication. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Diana S. v. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services
green
2 sentences2007He also cites State v. Brown, 03-2788 (La. 7/6/04), 879 So.2d 1276, 1288-1289 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1177 , 125 S.Ct. 1310 , 161 L.Ed.2d 161 (2005), in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a prior juvenile adjudication of delinquency, in which the juvenile does not have the right to a jury trial, does not qualify as a "prior conviction" for purposes of the Apprendi exception, and thus, it is unconstitutional to adjudicate a defendant a habitual offender based upon a prior juvenile adjudication. 2007He also cites State v. Brown, 03-2788 (La. 7/6/04), 879 So.2d 1276, 1288-1289 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1177 , 125 S.Ct. 1310 , 161 L.Ed.2d 161 (2005), in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a prior juvenile adjudication of delinquency, in which the juvenile does not have the right to a jury trial, does not qualify as a "prior conviction" for purposes of the Apprendi exception, and thus, it is unconstitutional to adjudicate a defendant a habitual offender based upon a prior juvenile adjudication. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Aquamar S. A. v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
green
2 sentences2007He also cites State v. Brown, 03-2788 (La. 7/6/04), 879 So.2d 1276, 1288-1289 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1177 , 125 S.Ct. 1310 , 161 L.Ed.2d 161 (2005), in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a prior juvenile adjudication of delinquency, in which the juvenile does not have the right to a jury trial, does not qualify as a "prior conviction" for purposes of the Apprendi exception, and thus, it is unconstitutional to adjudicate a defendant a habitual offender based upon a prior juvenile adjudication. 2007He also cites State v. Brown, 03-2788 (La. 7/6/04), 879 So.2d 1276, 1288-1289 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1177 , 125 S.Ct. 1310 , 161 L.Ed.2d 161 (2005), in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a prior juvenile adjudication of delinquency, in which the juvenile does not have the right to a jury trial, does not qualify as a "prior conviction" for purposes of the Apprendi exception, and thus, it is unconstitutional to adjudicate a defendant a habitual offender based upon a prior juvenile adjudication. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Hitt v. Kansas
green
2 sentences2004State v. Hitt, 273 Kan. 224 , 42 P.3d 732, 736 (2002), cert. denied 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 962 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003). 2004State v. Hitt, 273 Kan. 224 , 42 P.3d 732, 736 (2002), cert. denied 537 U.S. 1104 , 123 S.Ct. 962 , 154 L.Ed.2d 772 (2003). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Almendarez-Torres v. United States
red
2 sentences2004Id. at 740. [12] Additionally, the defendant strenuously argues a majority on the United States Supreme Court appears to have moved rapidly away from the position taken in Almendarez-Torres that recidivism "does not relate to the commission of the offense, but goes to the punishment only, and therefore ... may be subsequently decided [by a judge]." 523 U.S. at 244 , 118 S.Ct. at 1231 . 2004Id. at 740. [12] Additionally, the defendant strenuously argues a majority on the United States Supreme Court appears to have moved rapidly away from the position taken in Almendarez-Torres that recidivism "does not relate to the commission of the offense, but goes to the punishment only, and therefore ... may be subsequently decided [by a judge]." 523 U.S. at 244 , 118 S.Ct. at 1231 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
United States v. Robinson
green
1 sentence2002"No Apprendi violation occurs when the district court sentences a defendant below the default statutory maximum, even though a fact, determined by the court under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, influences the length of the sentence imposed." Lopez-Lopez, supra citing United States v. Robinson, 241 F.3d 115, 119 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
United States v. Lopez-Lopez
green
1 sentence2002"No Apprendi violation occurs when the district court sentences a defendant below the default statutory maximum, even though a fact, determined by the court under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, influences the length of the sentence imposed." Lopez-Lopez, supra citing United States v. Robinson, 241 F.3d 115, 119 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.