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.
10 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2017 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. Hendersongreen1 sentence2017See Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567, ¶ 19 . ¶14 As part of his plea agreement with the State, Whiteside admitted to a prior felony conviction for sentencing purposes. | 1 | 1 |
Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen1 sentence2016The jury found the following aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the threatened use or possession of a gun, (2) the threatened infliction of a serious physical injury, (3) Ballesteros committed the offense for pecuniary gain, (4) physical, emotional, or financial harm to the victim, (5) Ballesteros left the scene of the crime, and (6) Ballesteros committed the crime while on probation. [RA 87 1-2.] See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) (“Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maxim | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rienhardtgreen2 sentences2015Stevens was subsequently sentenced to concurrent prison terms not 1We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588-89 , 951 P.2d 454, 463-64 (1997) (citation omitted). 2 STATE v. STEVENS Decision of the Court exceeding eight and a half years, and was given 119 days of presentence incarceration credit. 2015Stevens was subsequently sentenced to concurrent prison terms not 1We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588-89 , 951 P.2d 454, 463-64 (1997) (citation omitted). 2 STATE v. STEVENS Decision of the Court exceeding eight and a half years, and was given 119 days of presentence incarceration credit. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Atwoodred2 sentences2010Cf Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 612 , 832 P.2d at 629 (reviewing decision on motion to sever for abuse of discretion). ¶ 43 The second judge did not abuse his discretion by reconsidering the prior judge’s decision. 2010Cf Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 612 , 832 P.2d at 629 (reviewing decision on motion to sever for abuse of discretion). ¶ 43 The second judge did not abuse his discretion by reconsidering the prior judge’s decision. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cruzgreen1 sentence1985Cf. State v. Cruz, 137 Ariz. 541, 549 , 672 P.2d 470, 478 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Levicegreen2 sentences1974See State v. Levice, 59 Ariz. 472 , 130 P.2d 53 (1942). 1974See State v. Levice, 59 Ariz. 472 , 130 P.2d 53 (1942). | 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. King
green
1 sentence2017The prosecutor’s argument was a reasonable inference from the evidence, which demonstrated that both the man and woman sustained injuries during the altercation. ¶19 Finally, Nichols argues that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the State’s witnesses by indicating that (1) he doubted that defense counsel would suggest that Nichols did not enter or remain in the house; (2) he doubted that the jury could find an absence of criminal trespass, although it was the jury’s call; (3) he was “not big on reading instructions because there’s a lot of legalese”; and (4) apologizing for the aggravation | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Stone
green
2 sentences1985Feldhacker, advised the court that he had not had any contact with defendant, and that in accordance with State v. Stone, 111 Ariz. 62 , 523 P.2d 493 (1974) he would not participate in the aggravation hearing. 1985Feldhacker, advised the court that he had not had any contact with defendant, and that in accordance with State v. Stone, 111 Ariz. 62 , 523 P.2d 493 (1974) he would not participate in the aggravation hearing. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Cruz
green
1 sentence1985Cf. State v. Cruz, 137 Ariz. 541, 549 , 672 P.2d 470, 478 (1983). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Gayman
green
2 sentences1983Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 , 92 S.Ct. 495 , 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971); State v. Sodders, 130 Ariz. 23 , 633 P.2d 432 , (App.1981); State v. Gayman, 127 Ariz. 600 , 623 P.2d 30 (App.1981). 1983Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 , 92 S.Ct. 495 , 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971); State v. Sodders, 130 Ariz. 23 , 633 P.2d 432 , (App.1981); State v. Gayman, 127 Ariz. 600 , 623 P.2d 30 (App.1981). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Sodders
green
2 sentences1983Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 , 92 S.Ct. 495 , 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971); State v. Sodders, 130 Ariz. 23 , 633 P.2d 432 , (App.1981); State v. Gayman, 127 Ariz. 600 , 623 P.2d 30 (App.1981). 1983Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 , 92 S.Ct. 495 , 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971); State v. Sodders, 130 Ariz. 23 , 633 P.2d 432 , (App.1981); State v. Gayman, 127 Ariz. 600 , 623 P.2d 30 (App.1981). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Santobello v. New York
green
2 sentences1983Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 , 92 S.Ct. 495 , 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971); State v. Sodders, 130 Ariz. 23 , 633 P.2d 432 , (App.1981); State v. Gayman, 127 Ariz. 600 , 623 P.2d 30 (App.1981). 1983Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 , 92 S.Ct. 495 , 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971); State v. Sodders, 130 Ariz. 23 , 633 P.2d 432 , (App.1981); State v. Gayman, 127 Ariz. 600 , 623 P.2d 30 (App.1981). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
McCarthy v. United States
red
2 sentences1979A guilty plea involves a waiver of constitutional rights, McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 , 89 S.Ct. 1166 , 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969), and appellant, who was induced to plead guilty by an unkept plea bargain, should be allowed the opportunity to withdraw the plea. 1979A guilty plea involves a waiver of constitutional rights, McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 , 89 S.Ct. 1166 , 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969), and appellant, who was induced to plead guilty by an unkept plea bargain, should be allowed the opportunity to withdraw the plea. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Williams v. New York
green
2 sentences1977Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 , 69 S.Ct. 1079 , 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949). 1977Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 , 69 S.Ct. 1079 , 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.