State of Arizona v. Armando Pena, Jr. (2014)
green
· 135 citation events
across 2 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201420202026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II (2015)
When terms are not specifically defined, “courts apply common meanings and may look to dictionaries.” State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, ¶ 6 , 331 P.3d 412, 414 (2014) (internal citation omitted); see also § 1-213. ¶ 14 Here, the legislature has defined the crimes of “facilitation” and “conspiracy” in title 13.
internal citation omitted
green
State v. Samia (2024)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Clements (2024)
Pena, 235 Ariz. at 279, ¶ 5 ; Ariz. R.
green
State v. Price (2021)
We review this issue de 3 STATE v. PRICE Decision of the Court novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to supporting the jury’s verdict and resolving “any conflicts in the evidence against the defendant.” State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
quoting Pena, 235 Ariz. at 279, ¶ 5
green
State v. Waldrup (2021)
Id. (“Substantial evidence is evidence that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (internal quotations omitted).
“Substantial evidence is evidence that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.”
green
State v. Chambers (2021)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Knight (2020)
State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 461, ¶ 168 (2016); State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
Prosise v. Hon kottke/state (2020)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Shephard (2020)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Lemons (2020)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Dutra (2018)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014). ¶9 Arizona's kidnapping statute took its current form in 1978 when the legislature overhauled the state's criminal code.
green
State v. Decker (2016)
Montgomery v. Harris (Shilgevorkyan), 237 Ariz. 98, 100, ¶ 8 , 346 P.3d 984 (2014); State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 6 , 331 P.3d 412 (2014); see also A.R.S. § 1-213 (stating that statutes should be construed based on the common meaning of words and phrases, unless subject to an established legal definition).
green
State v. Stiefel (2015)
State v. Peña, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 6 , 331 P.3d 412, 414 (2014).
green
State v. Harrison (2015)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 , 331 P.3d 412, 414 (2014).
green
State v. Gordillo (2026)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State of Arizona v. Jose Soto (2026)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Riehle (2026)
We review de novo whether the record had sufficient evidence for the jury to render its verdict, State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014), and will affirm if substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict, State v. Hausner, 230 Ariz. 60, 75, ¶ 50 (2012).
green
State v. Alfartousi (2026)
“We resolve any conflicts in the evidence against the defendant and view all facts in the light most favorable to supporting the verdict.” State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014). ¶25 A person commits stalking by “intentionally or knowingly engag[ing] in a course of conduct that is directed toward another person and if that conduct causes the victim to . . . [s]uffer emotional distress or reasonably fear that” the victim will be physically injured.
green
State v. Martell (2025)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Ordway (2025)
In doing so, we review the evidence presented at trial to determine if “substantial evidence exists to support the jury verdict.” State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014) (citation omitted).
citation omitted
green
State v. Cook (2025)
We “review de novo the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction . . . resolv[ing] any conflicts in the evidence against the defendant and view[ing] all facts in the light most favorable to supporting the verdict.” State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014). ¶15 To convict a defendant of aggravated DUI under section 28- 1383(A)(1), the State must prove the defendant drove under the influence when “the defendant knew or should have known his or her license was suspen…
green
State v. Truong (2024)
Sufficiency of the Evidence ¶25 Truong last contends the State presented insufficient evidence to prove he did not act in self-defense. ¶26 We review sufficiency of the evidence claims de novo, State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014), and will only reverse if the verdict is not supported by substantial evidence, State v. Tucker, 231 Ariz. 125, 138, ¶ 27 (App. 2012).
green
State v. Collins (2024)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014); Ariz. R.
green
State v. Finch (2024)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Jones (2024)
We review that issue de novo and accept the facts in the light most favorable to supporting the jury’s verdict and resolving “any conflicts in the evidence against the defendant.” State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Welvaert (2024)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014); Ariz. R.
green
State v. Garibaldo (2024)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Begaye (2024)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Cockhearn (2024)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Alba (2024)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Royalty (2023)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Lopez (2023)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Lohmeier (2023)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State of Arizona v. George Willie Rios (2023)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, ¶ 5 (2014). ¶21 Substantial evidence must support each element of the crime charged.
green
State v. Vaughan (2023)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Castillo (2022)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Burger (2022)
Instead, she only challenges her convictions for Counts 7, 8, 9, and 10 related to the vehicle burglary, arguing insufficient evidence supports her convictions.1 ¶9 We review de novo the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction and determine only “if substantial evidence exists to support the jury verdict.” State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Douglas (2021)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Khorrami (2021)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Shakir (2021)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Purcell (2021)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014). ¶19 Purcell specifically argues the motive presented by the State, namely the feud between Purcell and the victim, is unsupported by evidence.
green
State v. Worrell (2020)
Worrell also contends that even if sufficient evidence showed he fractured C.W.’s right humerus (Count 2), that evidence did not show he did so knowingly or intentionally. ¶28 We review whether sufficient evidence supports a conviction de novo, “resolv[ing] any conflicts in the evidence against the defendant and view[ing] all facts in the light most favorable to supporting the verdict.” State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
State v. Richardson (2020)
“We resolve any conflicts in the evidence against the defendant and view all facts in the light most favorable to supporting the verdict.” State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014). ¶7 As relevant here, “[a] person commits manslaughter by . . . [r]ecklessly causing the death of another person.” A.R.S. § 13-1103(A)(1).
green
State v. Antone (2020)
N.F. did not testify at Antone’s trial. ¶11 We review whether sufficient evidence supports a conviction de novo, “resolv[ing] any conflicts in the evidence against the defendant and view[ing] all facts in the light most favorable to supporting the verdict.” State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).
green
Abelardo Chaparro v. David C Shinn (2020)
“Absent statutory definitions, courts apply common meanings and may look to dictionaries.” State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277 , 279 ¶ 6 (2014) (internal citations omitted).
“[C]onditional release of a prisoner from imprisonment before the full sentence has been served.”
green
State v. Allen (2019)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014). ¶11 As relevant here, a person commits third-degree burglary by "[e]ntering or remaining unlawfully in or on a nonresidential structure . . . with the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein." A.R.S. § 13- 1506(A)(1) (2019).
green
Meyer v. State (2019)
See Black’s Law Dictionary 343 (10th ed. 2014) (“Compensation consists of wages and benefits in return for services” and “includes wages, stock option plans, profit-sharing, commissions, bonuses, golden parachutes, vacation, sick pay, medical benefits, disability, leaves of absence, and expense reimbursement.” (citation omitted)); see generally State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 6 (2014) (“Absent statutory definitions, courts . . . may look to dictionaries.”). “[T]he words…
“Absent statutory definitions, courts . . . may look to dictionaries.”
green
State v. Ramos (2018)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014). ¶9 As relevant here, a person commits custodial interference when, "knowing or having reason to know that the person has no legal right 1 Absent material revision after the relevant date, we cite a statute's current version. 3 STATE v. RAMOS Decision of the Court to do so, the person . . . [t]akes . . . from lawful custody any child . . . who is entrusted by authority of law to the custody of another person." A.R.S. § 13-1302(A)…
green
State v. Jones (2016)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277 , 279 ¶ 5, 331 P.3d 412, 414 (2014).
green
State v. Patron (2015)
State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277 , 279 ¶ 5, 331 P.3d 412, 414 (2014).