Thomas claim in Louisiana

2021Furthermore, regarding prejudice to Mr. Thomas, we note “[t]he Louisiana Supreme Court has delineated the ‘basic objectives’ of the Louisiana discovery process as follows: (1) to afford all parties a fair opportunity to obtain facts 11 pertinent to litigation; (2) to discover the true facts and compel disclosure of these facts wherever they may be found; (3) to assist litigants in preparing their cases for trial; (4) to narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties, and; (5) to facilitate and expedite the legal process by encouraging settlement or abandonment of less than meritorious

2018Though Thomas's claim is barred under La.Code Crim.P. art. 881.1, this court, in the interest of justice, will review his sentence for bare excessiveness pursuant to State v. Graves , 01-156 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/3/01) , 798 So.2d 1090 , writ denied , 02-29 (La. 10/14/02), 827 So.2d 420 .

2018Though Thomas's claim is barred under La.Code Crim.P. art. 881.1, this court, in the interest of justice, will review his sentence for bare excessiveness pursuant to State v. Graves , 01-156 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/3/01) , 798 So.2d 1090 , writ denied , 02-29 (La. 10/14/02), 827 So.2d 420 .

2016First, we note that in State v. Thomas, 95-1646 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/8/96) , 680 So.2d 37 , this court addressed Thomas’ claim that his convictions violated double jeopardy since he was convicted of three separate felonies arising out of the same criminal episode. 1 Ultimately concluding no double jeopardy violation occurred, this court noted that in Morris , the defendant was convicted of three separate felonies committed during a continuous course of conduct: In the case of [Morris], the defendant was convicted of three felonies—simple burglary, unauthorized use of a movable, and simple crimina

2014This court recently reiterated the burden in State v. Joseph, 2012-1176, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/20/13), 112 So.3d 363 , 365: Because statutes of limitation are the primary guarantee against inordinate delays and represent the legislative balancing of the interests of the state against the interest of the defendant, “these limitations should be given effect unless the state carries its burden of showing valid grounds to support an interruption or sufficient suspension of these time periods.” (citations omitted) When, as in this case, a defendant brings an apparent meritorious motion to quash ba

2012See In re Succession of James, supra; Succession of Faget, 2005-1434, 2005-1435 (La.App. 1st Cir.06/09/06), 938 So.2d 1003 , writ denied, 2006-1719 (La.11/09/06), 941 So.2d 40 ; In re Succession of McKay, 2005-0603 (La.

2012Because Patin’s constitutional speedy trial claim is based on the length of time he has been incarcerated for the present offense, see State v. Page, 95-2401 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/21/96) , 680 So.2d 700 , the following is a chronology of all the events leading up to the present appeal: Magistrate # 39604.8 12/27/01 First appearance; bond set; rule to show cause set for 1/8/02 |fil/8/02 Rule to show cause reset 1/11/02 1/11/02 Preliminary hearing set for 1/18/02 1/18/02 Preliminary hearing reset to 1/25/02 1/25/02 Patín represented by J.C.

2012See In re Succession of James, supra; Succession of Faget, 2005-1434, 2005-1435 (La.App. 1st Cir.06/09/06), 938 So.2d 1003 , writ denied, 2006-1719 (La.11/09/06), 941 So.2d 40 ; In re Succession of McKay, 2005-0603 (La.

2003Moody v. City of New Orleans, 99-0708 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/13/00) ; 769 So.2d 670 , writ denied, 00-2809 (La.12/8/00); 776 So.2d 468 .

2003Moody v. City of New Orleans, 99-0708 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/13/00) ; 769 So.2d 670 , writ denied, 00-2809 (La.12/8/00); 776 So.2d 468 .

1998It is well-settled that “[a]n insurer or an employer is required to make a reasonable effort to ascertain an employee’s exact medical condition before benefits are terminated or denied.” Penn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 93-1262, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir.), 638 So.2d 1123 , writ denied, 94-1835 (La.10/28/94); 644 So.2d 651 .

1998It is well-settled that “[a]n insurer or an employer is required to make a reasonable effort to ascertain an employee’s exact medical condition before benefits are terminated or denied.” Penn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 93-1262, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir.), 638 So.2d 1123 , writ denied, 94-1835 (La.10/28/94); 644 So.2d 651 .