noted standard in Louisiana

2002In State v. Page, 95-2401, p. 12 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/21/96), 680 So.2d 700, 709-710 , this court noted the standard for determining probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant: | ^Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 162 provides that a search warrant may be issued “only upon probable cause established to the satisfaction of the judge, by the affidavit of a credible person, reciting facts establishing the cause for the issuance of the warrant.” In State v. Duncan, 420 So.2d 1105, 1108 (La.1982) our Supreme Court held that probable cause exists when: the facts and circumsta

2000In State v. Page, 95-2401, p. 12 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/21/96), 680 So.2d 700, 709-710 , writ denied, 96-2352 (La.2/21/97), 688 So.2d 522 , this court noted the standard for determining probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant: Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 162 provides that a search warrant may be issued “only upon probable cause established to the satisfaction of the judge, by the affidavit of a credible person, reciting facts establishing the cause for the issuance of the warrant.” In State v. Duncan, 420 So.2d 1105, 1108 (La.1982) our Supreme Court held that pro

2002In State v. Page, 95-2401, p. 12 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/21/96), 680 So.2d 700, 709-710 , this court noted the standard for determining probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant: | ^Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 162 provides that a search warrant may be issued “only upon probable cause established to the satisfaction of the judge, by the affidavit of a credible person, reciting facts establishing the cause for the issuance of the warrant.” In State v. Duncan, 420 So.2d 1105, 1108 (La.1982) our Supreme Court held that probable cause exists when: the facts and circumsta

2000In State v. Page, 95-2401, p. 12 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/21/96), 680 So.2d 700, 709-710 , writ denied, 96-2352 (La.2/21/97), 688 So.2d 522 , this court noted the standard for determining probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant: Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 162 provides that a search warrant may be issued “only upon probable cause established to the satisfaction of the judge, by the affidavit of a credible person, reciting facts establishing the cause for the issuance of the warrant.” In State v. Duncan, 420 So.2d 1105, 1108 (La.1982) our Supreme Court held that pro

2009The court noted that defense counsel alleged in his brief that he examined photographs of the victims with a magnifying glass and detected "`a tiny mark on the forehead on one of the boys....'" Id. at 1207 .

2009The court noted that defense counsel alleged in his brief that he examined photographs of the victims with a magnifying glass and detected “ ‘a tiny mark on the forehead on one of the boys....’” Id. at 1207 .

2000In State v. Page, 95-2401, p. 12 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/21/96), 680 So.2d 700, 709-710 , writ denied, 96-2352 (La.2/21/97), 688 So.2d 522 , this court noted the standard for determining probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant: Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 162 provides that a search warrant may be issued “only upon probable cause established to the satisfaction of the judge, by the affidavit of a credible person, reciting facts establishing the cause for the issuance of the warrant.” In State v. Duncan, 420 So.2d 1105, 1108 (La.1982) our Supreme Court held that pro

2000In State v. Page, 95-2401, p. 12 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/21/96), 680 So.2d 700, 709-710 , writ denied, 96-2352 (La.2/21/97), 688 So.2d 522 , this Court noted the standard for determining probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant: Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 162 provides that a search warrant may be issued "only upon probable cause established to the satisfaction of the judge, by the affidavit of a credible person, reciting facts establishing the cause for the issuance of the warrant." In State v. Duncan, 420 So.2d 1105, 1108 (La.1982) our Supreme Court held that pro

2022App. 5 Cir. 2/22/17), 212 So. 3d 1268 , after ruling on the appellant’s other assignments of error regarding his trial, conviction, and habitual offender adjudication, the court noted in its error patent review that the appellant’s motion to reconsider his original sentences was still pending in district court.

2019Id. 14 The Supreme Court found that it fell within a noted exception to Nomey’s preclusion of a nunc pro tunc competency hearing because the trial judge ignored a bona fide doubt as to defendant's competence to stand trial.

2019Collins, 607 So. 2d at 765 .

2019State v. Snyder, 98-1078 (La. 4/14/99), 750 So. 2d 832 , 854–55 19-KA-4 9 The Louisiana Supreme Court encouraged the court to take additional evidence, including the records and testimony of the examining physicians.

2018In State v. Lauff , 06-717, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/13/07), 953 So.2d 813 , 818, the fifth circuit stated: Both the Louisiana Supreme Court and this Court have consistently held that a motion to quash is, essentially, a mechanism to urge pre-trial pleas, i.e. pleas which do not go to the merits of the charge.

2018In Bourgeois , this court noted that this principle is applied "to prevent the too easy thwarting of summary judgment procedure by the mere filing of affidavits contradicting the inconvenient statements found in previous deposition testimony when the mover has no opportunity to cross-examine the witness concerning the inconsistencies and the trial court is prevented from weighing evidence by the rules of summary judgment." Id.

2018The court also noted that it was "apparent that defense counsel had prepared his case based upon the assumption that the defendant had been charged under subsection B(3), not B(1) as alleged in the bill of information." Id. at 1148 .

2018Id.

2014The Workers’ Compensation Judge erred in finding that [Johnson] is entitled to an award of penalties and attorney fees. |,STAND ARP OF REVIEW In Foster v. Rabalais Masonry, Inc., 01-1394, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir.3/6/02), 811 So.2d 1160, 1162 , writ denied, 02-1164 (La.6/14/02), 818 So.2d 784 (citations omitted), this court noted the standard of review applicable in workers’ compensation cases as follows: “Factual findings in workers’ compensation cases are subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of appellate review.

2014The Workers’ Compensation Judge erred in finding that [Johnson] is entitled to an award of penalties and attorney fees. |,STAND ARP OF REVIEW In Foster v. Rabalais Masonry, Inc., 01-1394, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir.3/6/02), 811 So.2d 1160, 1162 , writ denied, 02-1164 (La.6/14/02), 818 So.2d 784 (citations omitted), this court noted the standard of review applicable in workers’ compensation cases as follows: “Factual findings in workers’ compensation cases are subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of appellate review.

2013In State v. Gordon, 11-898, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/22/12), 85 So.3d 242, 244 , writ denied, 12-659 (La.9/14/12), 97 So.3d 1015 ; and State v. Barling, 00-1241, 01-1591 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/31/01) , 779 So.2d 1035 , writ denied, 01-838 (La.2/1/02), 808 So.2d 331 , this court noted that defense counsels made an oral objection to the sentence but did not specify the grounds for the objection.

2013In State v. Gordon, 11-898, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/22/12), 85 So.3d 242, 244 , writ denied, 12-659 (La.9/14/12), 97 So.3d 1015 ; and State v. Barling, 00-1241, 01-1591 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/31/01) , 779 So.2d 1035 , writ denied, 01-838 (La.2/1/02), 808 So.2d 331 , this court noted that defense counsels made an oral objection to the sentence but did not specify the grounds for the objection.

2013In State v. Gordon, 11-898, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/22/12), 85 So.3d 242, 244 , writ denied, 12-659 (La.9/14/12), 97 So.3d 1015 ; and State v. Barling, 00-1241, 01-1591 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/31/01) , 779 So.2d 1035 , writ denied, 01-838 (La.2/1/02), 808 So.2d 331 , this court noted that defense counsels made an oral objection to the sentence but did not specify the grounds for the objection.

2013In State v. Gordon, 11-898, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/22/12), 85 So.3d 242, 244 , writ denied, 12-659 (La.9/14/12), 97 So.3d 1015 ; and State v. Barling, 00-1241, 01-1591 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/31/01) , 779 So.2d 1035 , writ denied, 01-838 (La.2/1/02), 808 So.2d 331 , this court noted that defense counsels made an oral objection to the sentence but did not specify the grounds for the objection.

2012In Bordelon v. Cox Communications, 05-40 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/31/05) , 905 So.2d 1107 , this Court noted that the inquiry as to awards for penalties and attorney fees in the workers’ | l4compensation context is whether the employer reasonably controverted the claim.

2011In State v. Anderson, 99-1407 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/26/00) , 753 So.2d 321 , this court noted as an error patent that the trial court had failed to rule on the defendant’s timely-filed motions for new trial, post-verdict judgment of acquittal, and in arrest of judgment until after sentencing.

2011We also cited the prior decision of State v. Smith, 553 So.2d 934 (La.App. 4th Cir.1989), where this court noted as an error patent that the trial court had failed to rule on the defendant’s motion for new trial before imposing sentence, as required by La.C.Cr.P. art. 853.

2011On appeal, the defendant maintained his counsel advised him any defense was futile; however, the Fourth Circuit remarked that the preliminary hearing transcript showed the victim's statements to the police were inconsistent. *405 Conversely, in State v. Blanchard, 00-1147 (La.4/20/01), 786 So.2d 701 , the Louisiana Supreme Court distinguished Calhoun and found no basis to allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea despite the fact the trial court had failed to advise him of the sex registration requirements during the plea colloquy.