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 1 courts 1983–2020 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. Reyesgreen2 sentences2015The State confesses error, relying in part on State v. Reyes, 232 Ariz. 468, 472, ¶ 14 , 307 P.3d 35, 39 (App. 2013) where we held that § 13–610 does not authorize the court to impose a DNA collection fee on a convicted defendant. 2015The State confesses error, relying in part on State v. Reyes, 232 Ariz. 468, 472, ¶ 14 , 307 P.3d 35, 39 (App. 2013) where we held that § 13–610 does not authorize the court to impose a DNA collection fee on a convicted defendant. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Cofieldgreen1 sentence2020See A.R.S. § 13-712(B); State v. Cofield, 210 Ariz. 84, 86, ¶ 10 (App. 2005) (failing to award credit for 7 STATE v. LAWS Decision of the Court presentence incarceration is fundamental error). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jamesgreen1 sentence2018See State v. James, 231 Ariz. 490 , 493 ¶ 11 (2013) (noting that, when no timely objection is made, “the review on appeal is for fundamental error,” meaning the defendant “bears the burden to establish that (1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.”) (citations and internal punctuation omitted). ¶3 The State confesses error, noting that when a defendant shows on the appellate record that the restitution ordered exceeds a lawful award, the error is fundamental resulting in prejudice and the appellate court may reduce the award to a lawful amount. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hansongreen2 sentences2015"When there is a discrepancy between the oral sentence and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement of sentence controls." State v. Hanson, 138 Ariz. 296 , 304-05, 674 P.2d 850, 858-59 (App. 1983). 2015"When there is a discrepancy between the oral sentence and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement of sentence controls." State v. Hanson, 138 Ariz. 296 , 304-05, 674 P.2d 850, 858-59 (App. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Eaglegreen2 sentences2014U.S. Const. amend V; Ariz. Const. art II, § 10; State v. Eagle, 196 Ariz. 188 , 190 ¶ 5, 994 P.2d 395, 397 (2000). 2014U.S. Const. amend V; Ariz. Const. art II, § 10; State v. Eagle, 196 Ariz. 188 , 190 ¶ 5, 994 P.2d 395, 397 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hardwickgreen2 sentences2005State v. Hardwick, 183 Ariz. 649, 656-57 , 905 P.2d 1384, 1391-92 (App.1995) (citing State v. Ojeda, 159 Ariz. 560, 562 , 769 P.2d 1006, 1008 (1989)). ¶ 16 The court stated its reasons for finding both aggravating and mitigating factors as follows: The Court finds as an aggravating factor in this case the emotional impact of the offense upon the victim although the Court finds this just barely and I am basing this upon the statements made by the victim at trial that he has to get up everyday and look in the mirror and see the scar which is a fairly prominent scar and the testimony from the pla 2005State v. Hardwick, 183 Ariz. 649, 656-57 , 905 P.2d 1384, 1391-92 (App.1995) (citing State v. Ojeda, 159 Ariz. 560, 562 , 769 P.2d 1006, 1008 (1989)). ¶ 16 The court stated its reasons for finding both aggravating and mitigating factors as follows: The Court finds as an aggravating factor in this case the emotional impact of the offense upon the victim although the Court finds this just barely and I am basing this upon the statements made by the victim at trial that he has to get up everyday and look in the mirror and see the scar which is a fairly prominent scar and the testimony from the pla | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ojedagreen2 sentences2005State v. Hardwick, 183 Ariz. 649, 656-57 , 905 P.2d 1384, 1391-92 (App.1995) (citing State v. Ojeda, 159 Ariz. 560, 562 , 769 P.2d 1006, 1008 (1989)). ¶ 16 The court stated its reasons for finding both aggravating and mitigating factors as follows: The Court finds as an aggravating factor in this case the emotional impact of the offense upon the victim although the Court finds this just barely and I am basing this upon the statements made by the victim at trial that he has to get up everyday and look in the mirror and see the scar which is a fairly prominent scar and the testimony from the pla 2005State v. Hardwick, 183 Ariz. 649, 656-57 , 905 P.2d 1384, 1391-92 (App.1995) (citing State v. Ojeda, 159 Ariz. 560, 562 , 769 P.2d 1006, 1008 (1989)). ¶ 16 The court stated its reasons for finding both aggravating and mitigating factors as follows: The Court finds as an aggravating factor in this case the emotional impact of the offense upon the victim although the Court finds this just barely and I am basing this upon the statements made by the victim at trial that he has to get up everyday and look in the mirror and see the scar which is a fairly prominent scar and the testimony from the pla | 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. 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 |
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 |
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 |
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.