State v. Fobbs
Cases that cite this one
68 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- State of Louisiana v. Nataja Shermaine Portalis (La. Ct. App. 2023)
- State v. Chandler (La. Ct. App. 2006)
- State v. Alvey (La. Ct. App. 2003)
- State v. Derouin (La. Ct. App. 2001)
- State v. Russell (La. Ct. App. 2000)
- State v. Dupart (La. Ct. App. 2000)
- State of Louisiana v. John Honore (La. Ct. App. 2025)
- State of Louisiana v. Robert J. Davis (La. Ct. App. 2025)
- State Of Louisiana v. Quentin LaJaurne Coleman (La. Ct. App. 2024)
- State Of Louisiana v. David Theodore Ward, Jr. (La. Ct. App. 2024)
- State Of Louisiana v. Rogelio Ledezma (La. Ct. App. 2024)
- State of Louisiana Versus Teddy Chester (La. Ct. App. 2021)
- Laura Eugene Versus Frederick M. Boutte, Warden (La. Ct. App. 2021)
- State v. Kennon (La. Ct. App. 2019)
- State v. Kennon (La. Ct. App. 2019)
- State v. Comeaux (La. Ct. App. 2018)
- State v. Barrett (La. Ct. App. 2018)
- State v. Livous (La. Ct. App. 2018)
- State v. Vaughn (La. Ct. App. 2018)
- State of Louisiana v. Adam Comeaux (La. Ct. App. 2018)
- State v. McCasland (La. Ct. App. 2017)
- State v. Scott (La. Ct. App. 2017)
- State v. Thompson (La. Ct. App. 2017)
- State v. Isidore (La. Ct. App. 2016)
- State v. Eley (La. Ct. App. 2016)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
STATE of Louisiana
v.
Edward FOBBS.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
*1275 PER CURIAM.[*]
Granted. This case is remanded to the court of appeal for reconsideration on the merits of the trial court's determination that the mandatory minimum term without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence specified by La.R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b) for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute is excessive as applied to this particular offender. Our observation in State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276, 1280 (La. 1993), that "the review of sentencing, including sentencing under R.S. 15:529.1, is a long established function of the judicial branch," does not, nor did we intend it to, restrict the sentence review principles espoused in that decision solely to the mandatory minimum penalties provided by La.R.S. 15:529.1. See State v. Davis, 94-2332, pp. 11-12 (La.App. 1st Cir. 12/15/95), 666 So.2d 400, 407-08. As we explained in State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762, 766 (La. 1979), La. Const. Art. 1, § 20 provides "the basis for extending the court's control over the entire sentencing process." (emphasis added).
TRAYLOR, J. dissents.
NOTES
[*] Lemmon, J., not on panel. See La.S.Ct.Rule IV, Part II, § 3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.