Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2002 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hannahyellow2 sentences2000A few months later, however, acknowledging that the law on prior convictions “has become confused as a result of the adoption of the new criminal code,” Hannah, 126 Ariz. at 576 , 617 P.2d at 528 , the court changed course from Lopez and Steelman , and it held that [s]o long as the defendant was convicted of the other offense before the conviction in the principal offense, the enhanced punishment provisions of § 13-604(B) are applicable. 2000A few months later, however, acknowledging that the law on prior convictions “has become confused as a result of the adoption of the new criminal code,” Hannah, 126 Ariz. at 576 , 617 P.2d at 528 , the court changed course from Lopez and Steelman , and it held that [s]o long as the defendant was convicted of the other offense before the conviction in the principal offense, the enhanced punishment provisions of § 13-604(B) are applicable. | 1 | 5 |
State v. Barrettgreen2 sentences1985In Barrett we suggested that “the better practice is for the prosecution to always request a separate form of verdict for dangerous nature in addition to the form of verdict for guilt when it seeks the enhanced punishment provisions of A.R.S. § 13-604.” Barrett, 132 Ariz. at 90 , 644 P.2d at 244 . 1985In Barrett we suggested that “the better practice is for the prosecution to always request a separate form of verdict for dangerous nature in addition to the form of verdict for guilt when it seeks the enhanced punishment provisions of A.R.S. § 13-604.” Barrett, 132 Ariz. at 90 , 644 P.2d at 244 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Ryboltred2 sentences1987See also State v. Rybolt, 133 Ariz. 276 , 650 P.2d 1258 (App.1982), rev’d on other grounds, State v. Diaz, 142 Ariz. 136 , 688 P.2d 1028 (App.), adopted, 142 Ariz. 119 , 688 P.2d 1011 (1984). 1987See also State v. Rybolt, 133 Ariz. 276 , 650 P.2d 1258 (App.1982), rev’d on other grounds, State v. Diaz, 142 Ariz. 136 , 688 P.2d 1028 (App.), adopted, 142 Ariz. 119 , 688 P.2d 1011 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Diazgreen2 sentences1987See also State v. Rybolt, 133 Ariz. 276 , 650 P.2d 1258 (App.1982), rev’d on other grounds, State v. Diaz, 142 Ariz. 136 , 688 P.2d 1028 (App.), adopted, 142 Ariz. 119 , 688 P.2d 1011 (1984). 1987See also State v. Rybolt, 133 Ariz. 276 , 650 P.2d 1258 (App.1982), rev’d on other grounds, State v. Diaz, 142 Ariz. 136 , 688 P.2d 1028 (App.), adopted, 142 Ariz. 119 , 688 P.2d 1011 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Diazgreen2 sentences1987See also State v. Rybolt, 133 Ariz. 276 , 650 P.2d 1258 (App.1982), rev’d on other grounds, State v. Diaz, 142 Ariz. 136 , 688 P.2d 1028 (App.), adopted, 142 Ariz. 119 , 688 P.2d 1011 (1984). 1987See also State v. Rybolt, 133 Ariz. 276 , 650 P.2d 1258 (App.1982), rev’d on other grounds, State v. Diaz, 142 Ariz. 136 , 688 P.2d 1028 (App.), adopted, 142 Ariz. 119 , 688 P.2d 1011 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rossgreen2 sentences1982State v. Chalmers, 100 Ariz. 70 , 411 P.2d 448 (1966); see, State v. Ross, 107 Ariz. 240 , 485 P.2d 810 (1971); State v. Pennye, 102 Ariz. 207 , 427 P.2d 525 (1967). 1982State v. Chalmers, 100 Ariz. 70 , 411 P.2d 448 (1966); see, State v. Ross, 107 Ariz. 240 , 485 P.2d 810 (1971); State v. Pennye, 102 Ariz. 207 , 427 P.2d 525 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bly
red
2 sentences1993The court held that it was not double punishment to consider an element of a crime both to enhance punishment pursuant to A.R.S. section 13-604 and as an aggravating factor under A.R.S. section 13-702. 127 Ariz. at 372-73 , 621 P.2d at 281-82 . 1993The court held that it was not double punishment to consider an element of a crime both to enhance punishment pursuant to A.R.S. section 13-604 and as an aggravating factor under A.R.S. section 13-702. 127 Ariz. at 372-73 , 621 P.2d at 281-82 . | 2 | 1981–1993 |
State v. Orduno
green
2 sentences2002In Orduno , our supreme court held that the state may not allege the dangerous nature of a motor vehicle in a DUI case to enhance punishment under § 13-604(F) 4 because the operation of a motor vehicle is a “necessarily included element” of every DUI case. 159 Ariz. at 567 , 769 P.2d at 1013 . 2002In Orduno , our supreme court held that the state may not allege the dangerous nature of a motor vehicle in a DUI case to enhance punishment under § 13-604(F) 4 because the operation of a motor vehicle is a “necessarily included element” of every DUI case. 159 Ariz. at 567 , 769 P.2d at 1013 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Davis v. SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF PIMA
neutral
2 sentences2000In fact, subsection H of § 13-604 makes it clear that conviction of the other offense need not occur prior to the commission of the principal offense____ Hannah, 126 Ariz. at 576 , 617 P.2d at 528 . ¶ 14 The same day it issued Hannah , the Arizona Supreme Court issued Davis v. Su *147 perior Court, 126 Ariz. 568 , 617 P.2d 520 (1980), which distinguished Lopez (as did Hannah) and disapproved Steelman : As stated in our decision in State v. Hannah, 126 Ariz. 575 , 617 P.2d 527 , Lopez does not apply as the statute construed in Lopez is markedly different from the statute considered in the insta 2000In fact, subsection H of § 13-604 makes it clear that conviction of the other offense need not occur prior to the commission of the principal offense____ Hannah, 126 Ariz. at 576 , 617 P.2d at 528 . ¶ 14 The same day it issued Hannah , the Arizona Supreme Court issued Davis v. Su *147 perior Court, 126 Ariz. 568 , 617 P.2d 520 (1980), which distinguished Lopez (as did Hannah) and disapproved Steelman : As stated in our decision in State v. Hannah, 126 Ariz. 575 , 617 P.2d 527 , Lopez does not apply as the statute construed in Lopez is markedly different from the statute considered in the insta | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Green
green
2 sentences1997Regardless of whether “conviction” occurs upon return of the jury’s verdict or upon entry of judgment at sentencing, see State v. Green, 174 Ariz. 586 , 852 P.2d 401 (1993), all of appellant’s convictions took place at the same time. 1997Regardless of whether “conviction” occurs upon return of the jury’s verdict or upon entry of judgment at sentencing, see State v. Green, 174 Ariz. 586 , 852 P.2d 401 (1993), all of appellant’s convictions took place at the same time. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Renaud
red
2 sentences1983The defendant counters by contending that the waiver of nonjurisdictional defects does not apply to admissions of prior convictions, citing State v. Renaud, 108 Ariz. 417 , 499 P.2d 712 (1972). 1983The defendant counters by contending that the waiver of nonjurisdictional defects does not apply to admissions of prior convictions, citing State v. Renaud, 108 Ariz. 417 , 499 P.2d 712 (1972). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Flewellen
green
2 sentences1983The state’s response to these arguments is that the defendant’s admission of the prior convictions for the express purpose of enhanced punishment under A.R.S. § 13-604(A) constitutes a waiver of nonjurisdictional defects associated with these prior convictions and therefore they may not be raised on appeal, relying on State v. Flewellen, 127 Ariz. 342 , 621 P.2d 29 (1980). 1983The state’s response to these arguments is that the defendant’s admission of the prior convictions for the express purpose of enhanced punishment under A.R.S. § 13-604(A) constitutes a waiver of nonjurisdictional defects associated with these prior convictions and therefore they may not be raised on appeal, relying on State v. Flewellen, 127 Ariz. 342 , 621 P.2d 29 (1980). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Barrett
green
2 sentences1982The facts giving rise to petitioner’s conviction are set out by the Court of Appeals in State v. Barrett, 132 Ariz. 106 , 644 P.2d 260 , No. 1 CA-CR 5004 (1981). *89 The trial court denied the prosecutor’s request to sentence under the enhanced punishment provisions of A.R.S. § 13-604. 1982The facts giving rise to petitioner’s conviction are set out by the Court of Appeals in State v. Barrett, 132 Ariz. 106 , 644 P.2d 260 , No. 1 CA-CR 5004 (1981). *89 The trial court denied the prosecutor’s request to sentence under the enhanced punishment provisions of A.R.S. § 13-604. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Pennye
green
2 sentences1982State v. Chalmers, 100 Ariz. 70 , 411 P.2d 448 (1966); see, State v. Ross, 107 Ariz. 240 , 485 P.2d 810 (1971); State v. Pennye, 102 Ariz. 207 , 427 P.2d 525 (1967). 1982State v. Chalmers, 100 Ariz. 70 , 411 P.2d 448 (1966); see, State v. Ross, 107 Ariz. 240 , 485 P.2d 810 (1971); State v. Pennye, 102 Ariz. 207 , 427 P.2d 525 (1967). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Chalmers
green
2 sentences1982State v. Chalmers, 100 Ariz. 70 , 411 P.2d 448 (1966); see, State v. Ross, 107 Ariz. 240 , 485 P.2d 810 (1971); State v. Pennye, 102 Ariz. 207 , 427 P.2d 525 (1967). 1982State v. Chalmers, 100 Ariz. 70 , 411 P.2d 448 (1966); see, State v. Ross, 107 Ariz. 240 , 485 P.2d 810 (1971); State v. Pennye, 102 Ariz. 207 , 427 P.2d 525 (1967). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Martinez
green
1 sentence1981Cf. State v. Martinez, Ariz.App., 634 P.2d 7 (1981) (held that prior convictions used to enhance punishment under A.R.S. § 13-604 could also be used as an aggravating circumstance under A.R.S. § 13-702). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.