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.
7 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2017 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. Newtongreen1 sentence2017See State v. Newton, 200 Ariz. 1, 2, ¶ 3 (2001) (“A basic principle of criminal law requires that an offender be sentenced under the laws in effect at the time he committed the offense for which he is being sentenced.”) (citing A.R.S. § 1-246 (1995)). ¶5 Harwood also argues that investigators should have informed him of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), during a confrontation call with the victim, and that A.R.S. § 13- 1401(3) (2007) (defining “sexual intercourse”), is unconstitutionally vague. | 1 | 1 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen1 sentence2017See State v. Newton, 200 Ariz. 1, 2, ¶ 3 (2001) (“A basic principle of criminal law requires that an offender be sentenced under the laws in effect at the time he committed the offense for which he is being sentenced.”) (citing A.R.S. § 1-246 (1995)). ¶5 Harwood also argues that investigators should have informed him of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), during a confrontation call with the victim, and that A.R.S. § 13- 1401(3) (2007) (defining “sexual intercourse”), is unconstitutionally vague. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hollenbackgreen1 sentence2016See id. at 17, ¶¶ 16-18, 126 P.3d at 164.6 Under current § 13-705(A)—and former § 13- 4 Section 13-702 has been substantially amended since Appellant’s crime, but the revisions have no effect on our resolution of this appeal. 5 At the time of Appellant’s crime, § 13-1405 provided that the offense of sexual conduct with a minor under fifteen years of age was “punishable pursuant to section 13-604.01.” The reference to § “13-604.01” was revised to § “13-705” in 2008, see 2008 Ariz. Sess. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hazlettgreen2 sentences2011Id. at 527, ¶ 11 , 73 P.3d at 1262 . ¶ 6 Further, the statute at issue in Hazlett contained a subsection regarding sentencing that is nearly identical to the language here: “Sexual exploitation of a minor is a class 2 felony and if the minor is under fifteen years of age it is punishable pursuant to § 13-604.01.” A.R.S. § 13-3553(0). 2011See Boynton v. Anderson, 205 Ariz. 45, 49, ¶ 15 , 66 P.3d 88, 92 (App.2003) (“Although luring a minor for sexual exploitation is not a ‘dangerous crime against children,’ the legislature has prescribed that it is punishable in accordance with § 13-604.01(1) under certain circumstances, i.e. when the minor is under fifteen years of age.”). 4 ¶ 5 This plain reading of the statute is supported by State v. Hazlett, 205 Ariz. 523 , 73 P.3d 1258 (App.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Boynton v. Andersongreen2 sentences2011See Boynton v. Anderson, 205 Ariz. 45, 49, ¶ 15 , 66 P.3d 88, 92 (App.2003) (“Although luring a minor for sexual exploitation is not a ‘dangerous crime against children,’ the legislature has prescribed that it is punishable in accordance with § 13-604.01(1) under certain circumstances, i.e. when the minor is under fifteen years of age.”). 4 ¶ 5 This plain reading of the statute is supported by State v. Hazlett, 205 Ariz. 523 , 73 P.3d 1258 (App.2003). 2011See Boynton v. Anderson, 205 Ariz. 45, 49, ¶ 15 , 66 P.3d 88, 92 (App.2003) (“Although luring a minor for sexual exploitation is not a ‘dangerous crime against children,’ the legislature has prescribed that it is punishable in accordance with § 13-604.01(1) under certain circumstances, i.e. when the minor is under fifteen years of age.”). 4 ¶ 5 This plain reading of the statute is supported by State v. Hazlett, 205 Ariz. 523 , 73 P.3d 1258 (App.2003). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Miranda-Cabreragreen2 sentences2008See Miranda-Cabrera, 209 Ariz. at 225, ¶22 , 99 P.3d at 40 . 2008See Miranda-Cabrera, 209 Ariz. at 225, ¶22 , 99 P.3d at 40 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Medrano-Barrazagreen2 sentences2000State v. Medrano-Barraza, 190 Ariz. 472, 474 , 949 P.2d 561, 563 (App.1997) ("We presume the framers of the statute did not intend an absurd result and our construction must avoid such a consequence."). [9] See, e.g., A.R.S. §§ 13-1404(B) (Supp.1999) (if the victim is under fifteen years of age, "sexual abuse ... is a class 3 felony punishable pursuant to § 13-604.01"), 13-1405(B) (Supp.1999) ("Sexual conduct with a minor under fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony and is punishable pursuant to § 13-604.01."), 13-1410 (Supp. 1999) (a person who molests a child under fifteen is guilty of "a 2000State v. Medrano-Barraza, 190 Ariz. 472, 474 , 949 P.2d 561, 563 (App.1997) ("We presume the framers of the statute did not intend an absurd result and our construction must avoid such a consequence."). [9] See, e.g., A.R.S. §§ 13-1404(B) (Supp.1999) (if the victim is under fifteen years of age, "sexual abuse ... is a class 3 felony punishable pursuant to § 13-604.01"), 13-1405(B) (Supp.1999) ("Sexual conduct with a minor under fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony and is punishable pursuant to § 13-604.01."), 13-1410 (Supp. 1999) (a person who molests a child under fifteen is guilty of "a | 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. Denning
green
2 sentences2011Id. at 461 , 747 P.2d at 622 . 2011Section (B) of the statute provided that if the victim is “under fifteen years of age” the sexual assault would be a class 2 felony “punishable pursuant to AR.S. § 13-604.01,” id., which attached a presumptive term of 20 years in prison as a “dangerous crime against children.” Id. at 461 n. 1, 747 P.2d at 622 n. 1. ¶33 The defendant in Denning initially contended on appeal that the state failed to establish his knowledge of the victim’s age at the time of the offense. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Carlisle
green
2 sentences2007In contrast, the issue here is whether a defendant like Gonzalez, who has been convicted of attempted sexual conduct with an eleven-year old-victim, may properly be sentenced under § 13-604.01. ¶ 12 Similarly, the trial court’s reliance on State v. Carlisle, 198 Ariz. 203 , 8 P.3d 391 (App.2000), for the proposition that attempted sexual conduct with a minor under the age of fifteen is a dangerous crime against children is misplaced. 2007In contrast, the issue here is whether a defendant like Gonzalez, who has been convicted of attempted sexual conduct with an eleven-year old-victim, may properly be sentenced under § 13-604.01. ¶ 12 Similarly, the trial court’s reliance on State v. Carlisle, 198 Ariz. 203 , 8 P.3d 391 (App.2000), for the proposition that attempted sexual conduct with a minor under the age of fifteen is a dangerous crime against children is misplaced. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.