State v. Johnson

25 Citing cases

  1. State v. Otero

    31 So. 3d 1125 (La. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 7 times
    In State v. Otero, 09-468 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/26/10), 31 So.3d 1125, writ denied, (La.9/24/10), 45 So.3d 1072, the defendant challenged his status as a third offender on grounds that he was not advised of his right to cross-examine witnesses against him in connection with his two predicate guilty pleas.

    The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Louisiana Constitution Article I, § 20 prohibit the imposition of excessive punishment. State v. Johnson, 03-620, p. 14 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/28/03), 860 So.2d 180, 189, writ denied, 03-3171 (La.3/19/04), 869 So.2d 849. "A sentence is considered excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the offense or imposes needless and purposeless pain and suffering." Id.

  2. State v. Bailey

    875 So. 2d 949 (La. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 120 times

    It is presumed that a mandatory minimum sentence under the Habitual Offender Law is constitutional. State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 6 (La. 3/4/98), 709 So.2d 672, 675; State v. Johnson, 03-620, p. 14 (La.App. 5th Cir. 10/28/03), 860 So.2d 180, 189. However, if the trial judge finds that an enhanced punishment mandated by La.R.S. 15:529.1 makes no "measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment" or that the sentence amounts to nothing more than "the purposeful imposition of pain and suffering" and is "grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime," the trial judge has the option and duty to reduce such sentence to one that would not be constitutionally excessive Dorthey, 623 So.2d at 1280; Johnson, 03-620 at 14, 860 So.2d at 189-190.

  3. State v. Johnson

    869 So. 2d 849 (La. 2004)

    IN RE: Johnson, Jonathan; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, Nos. 02-3243; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KA-620. Prior rport: La.App., 860 So.2d 180. Denied.

  4. State v. Hankton

    251 So. 3d 1234 (La. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    It is well-established that a defendant is limited to the grounds for objection articulated at trial and a new basis for an objection may not be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Cooks , 97-0999 (La. 9/9/98), 720 So.2d 637, 644, cert. denied , 526 U.S. 1042, 119 S.Ct. 1342, 143 L.Ed.2d 505 (1999) ; State v. Johnson , 03-620 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/28/03), 860 So.2d 180, 187, writ denied , 03-3171 (La. 3/19/04), 869 So.2d 849. The purpose behind the contemporaneous objection rule is to put the trial judge on notice of an alleged irregularity so that he may cure the problem and to prevent the defendant from gambling on a favorable verdict then resorting to appeal on errors that might easily have been corrected by an objection.

  5. State v. Luckey

    212 So. 3d 1220 (La. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 11 times
    In Luckey, the State called as a rebuttal witness an individual who was incarcerated at David Wade Correctional Center, to testify via WebEX, a program for transmitting two-way live video.

    Id. (citingState v. Johnson , 03–620 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/28/03), 860 So.2d 180, 187, writ denied , 03–3171 (La. 3/19/04), 869 So.2d 849 ). The purpose behind the contemporaneous objection rule is to put the trial judge on notice of an alleged irregularity so that he may cure the problem.

  6. State v. Hutchinson

    190 So. 3d 1264 (La. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    A mistrial is a drastic remedy and, except when mandatory, is warranted only when the defendant has suffered substantial prejudice such that he is incapable of receiving a fair trial. State v. Carmouche, 01–0405 (La.5/14/02), 872 So.2d 1020, 1035 ; State v. Johnson, 03–620 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/28/03), 860 So.2d 180, 186, writ denied, 03–3171 (La.3/19/04), 869 So.2d 849. Whether a mistrial should be granted is within the trial court's sound discretion, and denial of a mistrial motion will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion.

  7. State v. Breaux

    171 So. 3d 1234 (La. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    See State v. Preston, 47,273 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/8/12), 103 So.3d 525, 535. See also State v. Johnson, 03–620 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/28/03), 860 So.2d 180, 191, writ denied,03–3171 (La.3/19/04), 869 So.2d 849. Although defendant was incorrectly advised regarding the minimum sentence he could face, it is noted that defendant was correctly advised as to the sentence that would be imposed, and defendant agreed to the enhanced sentence. Based on the foregoing, we find that the proceedings surrounding defendant's guilty pleas, sentencing, and habitual offender stipulation and sentencing on count four do not present any non-frivolous issues to be raised on appeal.

  8. State v. Videau

    131 So. 3d 1070 (La. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 8 times

    A new basis for an objection may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Id. (citing State v. Johnson, 03–620 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/28/03), 860 So.2d 180, 187,writ denied,03–3171 (La.3/19/04), 869 So.2d 849). The purpose behind the contemporaneous objection rule is to put the trial judge on notice of an alleged irregularity so that he may cure the problem.

  9. State v. Dorsey

    NO. 11-KA-745 (La. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2012)

    Lastly, this Court has upheld 66-year sentences for third felony offenders with underlying convictions of armed robbery. See State v. Home, 11-204, 2012 WL 469890, at *5-7 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/14/12); State v. Otero, 09-468, pp. 7-10 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/26/10), 31 So.3d 1125, 1130-32, writ denied, 10-489 (La. 9/24/10), 45 So.3d 1072; and State v. Johnson, 03-620, pp. 14-15 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/28/03), 860 So.2d 180, 189-90, writ denied, 03-3171 (La. 3/19/04), 869 So.2d 849. We find the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in sentencing.

  10. State v. Dorsey

    94 So. 3d 49 (La. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 5 times
    Affirming the trial court's decision to deny the defendant's motion for mistrial, dismiss a juror, and replace that juror with an alternate after the juror notified the trial court that he had told other jurors that he knew one of the victims

    Lastly, this Court has upheld 66–year sentences for third felony offenders with underlying convictions of armed robbery. See State v. Horne, 11–204 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/14/12), 88 So.3d 562, 568–71; State v. Otero, 09–468, pp. 7–10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/26/10), 31 So.3d 1125, 1130–32,writ denied,10–489 (La.9/24/10), 45 So.3d 1072; and State v. Johnson, 03–620, pp. 14–15 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/28/03), 860 So.2d 180, 189–90,writ denied,03–3171 (La.3/19/04), 869 So.2d 849. We find the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in sentencing.