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.
9 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2015 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. Andersongreen2 sentences2004Suniga, 145 Ariz. at 395 , 701 P.2d at 1203 ; see, e.g., State v. Anderson, 181 Ariz. 18, 19-20 , 887 P.2d 548, 549-50 (App.1993) (sentence imposed in unlawful manner when court sentences defendant without having essential information). 2004Suniga, 145 Ariz. at 395 , 701 P.2d at 1203 ; see, e.g., State v. Anderson, 181 Ariz. 18, 19-20 , 887 P.2d 548, 549-50 (App.1993) (sentence imposed in unlawful manner when court sentences defendant without having essential information). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barnesgreen2 sentences1998P. 17.2; Boykin, 395 U.S. at 243 , 89 S. Ct. 1709 ; State v. Barnes, 167 Ariz. 186, 189 , 805 P.2d 1007, 1010 (1991). ¶ 37 This record shows that the trial judge fully satisfied each requirement and informed defendant before the guilty pleas were accepted that a presentence hearing would be held to determine sentencing. 1998P. 17.2; Boykin, 395 U.S. at 243 , 89 S. Ct. 1709 ; State v. Barnes, 167 Ariz. 186, 189 , 805 P.2d 1007, 1010 (1991). ¶ 37 This record shows that the trial judge fully satisfied each requirement and informed defendant before the guilty pleas were accepted that a presentence hearing would be held to determine sentencing. | 1 | 1 |
State v. De Nistorgreen2 sentences1998State v. De Nistor, 143 Ariz. 407, 412 , 694 P.2d 237, 242 (1985); State v. Cooper, 166 Ariz. 126, 131 , 800 P.2d 992, 997 (App.1990). 1998State v. De Nistor, 143 Ariz. 407, 412 , 694 P.2d 237, 242 (1985); State v. Cooper, 166 Ariz. 126, 131 , 800 P.2d 992, 997 (App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Coopergreen2 sentences1998State v. De Nistor, 143 Ariz. 407, 412 , 694 P.2d 237, 242 (1985); State v. Cooper, 166 Ariz. 126, 131 , 800 P.2d 992, 997 (App.1990). 1998State v. De Nistor, 143 Ariz. 407, 412 , 694 P.2d 237, 242 (1985); State v. Cooper, 166 Ariz. 126, 131 , 800 P.2d 992, 997 (App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dixongreen2 sentences1990State v. Dixon, 21 Ariz.App. 517, 519 , 521 P.2d 148, 150 (1974); Fennell & Hall, Due Process at Sentencing: An Empirical and Legal Analysis of the Disclosure of Presentence Reports in Federal Courts, 93 Harv.L.Rev. 1615, 1629 (1980). 1990State v. Dixon, 21 Ariz.App. 517, 519 , 521 P.2d 148, 150 (1974); Fennell & Hall, Due Process at Sentencing: An Empirical and Legal Analysis of the Disclosure of Presentence Reports in Federal Courts, 93 Harv.L.Rev. 1615, 1629 (1980). | 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. Donald
green
2 sentences2015Defendant asserts this hearing was pursuant to State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 , 10 P.3d 1193 (App.2000), the State asserts that because no plea deal had been offered the hearing was merely a presentence hearing. 2015Defendant asserts this hearing was pursuant to State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 , 10 P.3d 1193 (App.2000), the State asserts that because no plea deal had been offered the hearing was merely a presentence hearing. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Suniga
green
2 sentences2004Suniga, 145 Ariz. at 395 , 701 P.2d at 1203 ; see, e.g., State v. Anderson, 181 Ariz. 18, 19-20 , 887 P.2d 548, 549-50 (App.1993) (sentence imposed in unlawful manner when court sentences defendant without having essential information). 2004Suniga, 145 Ariz. at 395 , 701 P.2d at 1203 ; see, e.g., State v. Anderson, 181 Ariz. 18, 19-20 , 887 P.2d 548, 549-50 (App.1993) (sentence imposed in unlawful manner when court sentences defendant without having essential information). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Boykin v. Alabama
red
2 sentences1998P. 17.2; Boykin, 395 U.S. at 243 , 89 S. Ct. 1709 ; State v. Barnes, 167 Ariz. 186, 189 , 805 P.2d 1007, 1010 (1991). ¶ 37 This record shows that the trial judge fully satisfied each requirement and informed defendant before the guilty pleas were accepted that a presentence hearing would be held to determine sentencing. 1998P. 17.2; Boykin, 395 U.S. at 243 , 89 S. Ct. 1709 ; State v. Barnes, 167 Ariz. 186, 189 , 805 P.2d 1007, 1010 (1991). ¶ 37 This record shows that the trial judge fully satisfied each requirement and informed defendant before the guilty pleas were accepted that a presentence hearing would be held to determine sentencing. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Ohta
green
2 sentences1996State v. Ohta, 114 Ariz. 489 , 562 P.2d 369 (1977). 1996State v. Ohta, 114 Ariz. 489 , 562 P.2d 369 (1977). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Fettis
green
2 sentences1990We have held that “defendant must be present at his sentencing except in extraordinary circumstances.” State v. Fettis, 136 Ariz. 58 , 664 P.2d 208 (1983). 1990We have held that “defendant must be present at his sentencing except in extraordinary circumstances.” State v. Fettis, 136 Ariz. 58 , 664 P.2d 208 (1983). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Black v. Romano
green
2 sentences1987Although the issue was not raised by appellant as a matter of constitutional law, we find that she was entitled to a mitigation hearing before revocation based on the holdings in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973), and Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 , 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985). 1987Although the issue was not raised by appellant as a matter of constitutional law, we find that she was entitled to a mitigation hearing before revocation based on the holdings in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973), and Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 , 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Gagnon v. Scarpelli
red
2 sentences1987Although the issue was not raised by appellant as a matter of constitutional law, we find that she was entitled to a mitigation hearing before revocation based on the holdings in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973), and Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 , 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985). 1987Although the issue was not raised by appellant as a matter of constitutional law, we find that she was entitled to a mitigation hearing before revocation based on the holdings in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973), and Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 , 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Hartford
green
2 sentences1985State v. Hartford, 133 Ariz. 328 , 651 P.2d 856 (1982). 1985State v. Hartford, 133 Ariz. 328 , 651 P.2d 856 (1982). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Valencia
green
2 sentences1983The judge agreed based on State v. Valencia, 124 Ariz. 139 , 602 P.2d 807 (1979). 1983The judge agreed based on State v. Valencia, 124 Ariz. 139 , 602 P.2d 807 (1979). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.
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.