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.
8 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2022 2 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 sentences2006See State v. Anderson, 211 *59 Ariz. 59, ¶ 7, 116 P.3d 1219, 1221 (2005) (trial court’s failure to submit to jury issue of aggravating factor “was at worst harmless error”); Glassel, 211 Ariz. 33, ¶ 104 , 116 P.3d at 1218 (no fundamental Blakely error when defendant could not establish that any reasonable jury would have failed to find aggravating factor); Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, ¶ 28 , 120 P.3d at 696 . ¶ 13 Cleere argues the trial court’s finding of the three aggravating factors other than serious physical injury violated Blakely because those factors were neither found by a jury beyond a r 2006See State v. Anderson, 211 Ariz. 59, ¶ 7 , 116 P.3d 1219, 1221 (2005) (trial court’s failure to submit to jury issue of aggravating factor “was at worst harmless error”); Glassel, 211 Ariz. 33, ¶ 104 , 116 P.3d at 1218 (no fundamental Blakely error when defendant could not establish that any reasonable jury would have failed to find aggravating factor); Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, ¶ 28 , 120 P.3d at 696 . 8 ¶13 Cleere argues the trial court’s finding of the three aggravating factors other than serious physical injury violated Blakely because those factors were neither found by a jury beyond a rea | 2 | 2 |
State v. Burdickgreen2 sentences2006But, once the trial court found serious physical injury as an aggravating circumstance, an uncontested finding for which Cleere, in any event, has not established prejudice, the court “could properly consider the remaining factors to determine the specific sentence to impose on [him] within the aggravated range.” 4 Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, ¶ 29 , 120 P.3d at 696-97 ; see also Anderson, 211 Ariz. 59, ¶ 8 , 116 P.3d at 1221-22 ; Glassel, 211 Ariz. 33, ¶ 102 , 116 P.3d at 1217 ; Martinez, 210 Ariz. 578, ¶ 26 , 115 P.3d at 625 ; State v. Burdick, 211 Ariz. 583, ¶ 13 , 125 P.3d 1039, 1042 (App.2005 2006But, once the trial court found serious physical injury as an aggravating circumstance, an uncontested finding for which Cleere, in any event, has not established prejudice, the court “could properly consider the remaining factors to determine the specific sentence to impose on [him] within the aggravated range.” 4 Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, ¶ 29 , 120 P.3d at 696-97 ; see also Anderson, 211 Ariz. 59, ¶ 8 , 116 P.3d at 1221-22 ; Glassel, 211 Ariz. 33, ¶ 102 , 116 P.3d at 1217 ; Martinez, 210 Ariz. 578, ¶ 26 , 115 P.3d at 625 ; State v. Burdick, 211 Ariz. 583, ¶ 13 , 125 P.3d 1039, 1042 (App.2005 | 2 | 2 |
State v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2017See State v. Martinez, 210 Ariz. 578, 584, ¶ 21 (2005) (“Under Arizona’s sentencing scheme, once a jury implicitly or explicitly finds one aggravating factor, a defendant is exposed to a sentencing range that extends to the maximum punishment available under section 13-702. 2006But, once the trial court found serious physical injury as an aggravating circumstance, an uncontested finding for which Cleere, in any event, has not established prejudice, the court “could properly consider the remaining factors to determine the specific sentence to impose on [him] within the aggravated range.” 4 Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, ¶ 29 , 120 P.3d at 696-97 ; see also Anderson, 211 Ariz. 59, ¶ 8 , 116 P.3d at 1221-22 ; Glassel, 211 Ariz. 33, ¶ 102 , 116 P.3d at 1217 ; Martinez, 210 Ariz. 578, ¶ 26 , 115 P.3d at 625 ; State v. Burdick, 211 Ariz. 583, ¶ 13 , 125 P.3d 1039, 1042 (App.2005 | 1 | 3 |
State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Millergreen1 sentence2022To prove a prior felony conviction, the State must introduce “a certified copy of the conviction . . . and establish the defendant as the person to whom the document refers.” State v. Miller, 215 Ariz. 40, 43, ¶ 11 (App. 2007) (cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2021See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 . | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnsongreen1 sentence2021See Johnson, 247 Ariz. at 186 ¶ 44 (finding no prejudice from use of the same RAJI on fundamental error review in part because the court’s other instructions permitted the jury to freely consider the defendant’s “large mitigation case,” and yet the jury found it “lacking when compared to the three aggravating factors and the nature of the murder”). ¶23 In sum, even if Miller’s lawyers were deficient for failing to challenge the RAJI, his defense was not prejudiced because a reasonable probability did not exist that but for the errors, the jury would have returned a life sentence verdict, and t | 1 | 1 |
State v. Oaksgreen2 sentences2005None of those other aggravating factors the trial court relied on is Blakely -exempt, that is, a prior conviction, or Blakely -compliant, that is, a fact found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, admitted by Cleere, or inherent in his plea or conviction. [6] See State v. Oaks, 209 Ariz. 432, ¶ 23 , 104 P.3d 163, 168 (App.2004); Resendis-Felix, 209 Ariz. 292, ¶ 9 , 100 P.3d at 460 ; cf. State v. Timmons, 209 Ariz. 403, n. 1 , 103 P.3d 315 , 318 n. 1 (App.2005) (finding presence of accomplice a Blakely -compliant factor because implicit in jury's verdict; defendant was found guilty of aggravate 2005None of those other aggravating factors the trial court relied on is Blakely -exempt, that is, a prior conviction, or Blakely -compliant, that is, a fact found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, admitted by Cleere, or inherent in his plea or conviction. [6] See State v. Oaks, 209 Ariz. 432, ¶ 23 , 104 P.3d 163, 168 (App.2004); Resendis-Felix, 209 Ariz. 292, ¶ 9 , 100 P.3d at 460 ; cf. State v. Timmons, 209 Ariz. 403, n. 1 , 103 P.3d 315 , 318 n. 1 (App.2005) (finding presence of accomplice a Blakely -compliant factor because implicit in jury's verdict; defendant was found guilty of aggravate | 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. Glassel
green
2 sentences2006See State v. Anderson, 211 *59 Ariz. 59, ¶ 7, 116 P.3d 1219, 1221 (2005) (trial court’s failure to submit to jury issue of aggravating factor “was at worst harmless error”); Glassel, 211 Ariz. 33, ¶ 104 , 116 P.3d at 1218 (no fundamental Blakely error when defendant could not establish that any reasonable jury would have failed to find aggravating factor); Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, ¶ 28 , 120 P.3d at 696 . ¶ 13 Cleere argues the trial court’s finding of the three aggravating factors other than serious physical injury violated Blakely because those factors were neither found by a jury beyond a r 2006See State v. Anderson, 211 Ariz. 59, ¶ 7 , 116 P.3d 1219, 1221 (2005) (trial court’s failure to submit to jury issue of aggravating factor “was at worst harmless error”); Glassel, 211 Ariz. 33, ¶ 104 , 116 P.3d at 1218 (no fundamental Blakely error when defendant could not establish that any reasonable jury would have failed to find aggravating factor); Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, ¶ 28 , 120 P.3d at 696 . 8 ¶13 Cleere argues the trial court’s finding of the three aggravating factors other than serious physical injury violated Blakely because those factors were neither found by a jury beyond a rea | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Molina
green
2 sentences2006But, once the trial court found serious physical injury as an aggravating circumstance, an uncontested finding for which Cleere, in any event, has not established prejudice, the court “could properly consider the remaining factors to determine the specific sentence to impose on [him] within the aggravated range.” 4 Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, ¶ 29 , 120 P.3d at 696-97 ; see also Anderson, 211 Ariz. 59, ¶ 8 , 116 P.3d at 1221-22 ; Glassel, 211 Ariz. 33, ¶ 102 , 116 P.3d at 1217 ; Martinez, 210 Ariz. 578, ¶ 26 , 115 P.3d at 625 ; State v. Burdick, 211 Ariz. 583, ¶ 13 , 125 P.3d 1039, 1042 (App.2005 2006But, once the trial court found serious physical injury as an aggravating circumstance, an uncontested finding for which Cleere, in any event, has not established prejudice, the court “could properly consider the remaining factors to determine the specific sentence to impose on [him] within the aggravated range.” 4 Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, ¶ 29 , 120 P.3d at 696-97 ; see also Anderson, 211 Ariz. 59, ¶ 8 , 116 P.3d at 1221-22 ; Glassel, 211 Ariz. 33, ¶ 102 , 116 P.3d at 1217 ; Martinez, 210 Ariz. 578, ¶ 26 , 115 P.3d at 625 ; State v. Burdick, 211 Ariz. 583, ¶ 13 , 125 P.3d 1039, 1042 (App.2005 | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Ruggiero
green
2 sentences2006See State v. Anderson, 211 *59 Ariz. 59, ¶ 7, 116 P.3d 1219, 1221 (2005) (trial court’s failure to submit to jury issue of aggravating factor “was at worst harmless error”); Glassel, 211 Ariz. 33, ¶ 104 , 116 P.3d at 1218 (no fundamental Blakely error when defendant could not establish that any reasonable jury would have failed to find aggravating factor); Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, ¶ 28 , 120 P.3d at 696 . ¶ 13 Cleere argues the trial court’s finding of the three aggravating factors other than serious physical injury violated Blakely because those factors were neither found by a jury beyond a r 2006See State v. Anderson, 211 *59 Ariz. 59, ¶ 7, 116 P.3d 1219, 1221 (2005) (trial court’s failure to submit to jury issue of aggravating factor “was at worst harmless error”); Glassel, 211 Ariz. 33, ¶ 104 , 116 P.3d at 1218 (no fundamental Blakely error when defendant could not establish that any reasonable jury would have failed to find aggravating factor); Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, ¶ 28 , 120 P.3d at 696 . ¶ 13 Cleere argues the trial court’s finding of the three aggravating factors other than serious physical injury violated Blakely because those factors were neither found by a jury beyond a r | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2005The state has not filed a response to either Cleere's petition for review or his supplemental memorandum. ¶ 7 In Blakely , the Supreme Court applied the principles it had announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), to Washington's noncapital sentencing statute and concluded that the Sixth Amendment entitles a defendant to a jury's determining beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of any fact that increases a sentencing range beyond the statutory maximum. 2005The state has not filed a response to either Cleere's petition for review or his supplemental memorandum. ¶ 7 In Blakely , the Supreme Court applied the principles it had announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), to Washington's noncapital sentencing statute and concluded that the Sixth Amendment entitles a defendant to a jury's determining beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of any fact that increases a sentencing range beyond the statutory maximum. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Timmons
green
2 sentences2005None of those other aggravating factors the trial court relied on is Blakely -exempt, that is, a prior conviction, or Blakely -compliant, that is, a fact found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, admitted by Cleere, or inherent in his plea or conviction. [6] See State v. Oaks, 209 Ariz. 432, ¶ 23 , 104 P.3d 163, 168 (App.2004); Resendis-Felix, 209 Ariz. 292, ¶ 9 , 100 P.3d at 460 ; cf. State v. Timmons, 209 Ariz. 403, n. 1 , 103 P.3d 315 , 318 n. 1 (App.2005) (finding presence of accomplice a Blakely -compliant factor because implicit in jury's verdict; defendant was found guilty of aggravate 2005None of those other aggravating factors the trial court relied on is Blakely -exempt, that is, a prior conviction, or Blakely -compliant, that is, a fact found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, admitted by Cleere, or inherent in his plea or conviction. [6] See State v. Oaks, 209 Ariz. 432, ¶ 23 , 104 P.3d 163, 168 (App.2004); Resendis-Felix, 209 Ariz. 292, ¶ 9 , 100 P.3d at 460 ; cf. State v. Timmons, 209 Ariz. 403, n. 1 , 103 P.3d 315 , 318 n. 1 (App.2005) (finding presence of accomplice a Blakely -compliant factor because implicit in jury's verdict; defendant was found guilty of aggravate | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Resendis-Felix
green
2 sentences2005None of those other aggravating factors the trial court relied on is Blakely-exempt, that is, a prior conviction, or Blakely-compliant, that is, a fact found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, admitted by Cleere, or inherent in his plea or conviction. 6 See State v. Oaks, 209 Ariz. 432, ¶ 23 , 104 P.3d 163, 168 (App.2004); Resendis-Felix, 209 Ariz. 292, ¶ 9 , 100 P.3d at 460 ; ef. 2005None of those other aggravating factors the trial court relied on is Blakely -exempt, that is, a prior conviction, or Blakely -compliant, that is, a fact found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, admitted by Cleere, or inherent in his plea or conviction. [6] See State v. Oaks, 209 Ariz. 432, ¶ 23 , 104 P.3d 163, 168 (App.2004); Resendis-Felix, 209 Ariz. 292, ¶ 9 , 100 P.3d at 460 ; cf. State v. Timmons, 209 Ariz. 403, n. 1 , 103 P.3d 315 , 318 n. 1 (App.2005) (finding presence of accomplice a Blakely -compliant factor because implicit in jury's verdict; defendant was found guilty of aggravate | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Valencia
green
2 sentences1991In State v. Valencia, 132 Ariz. 248 , 645 P.2d 239 (1982), we recognized that a defendant’s young age is “a substantial and relevant factor” that should be given “great weight.” 132 Ariz. at 250, 645 P.2d at 241. 1991In State v. Valencia, 132 Ariz. 248 , 645 P.2d 239 (1982), we recognized that a defendant’s young age is “a substantial and relevant factor” that should be given “great weight.” 132 Ariz. at 250, 645 P.2d at 241. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Stanley
green
2 sentences1991State v. Stanley, 167 Ariz. 519 , 809 P.2d 944 (1991). 1991State v. Stanley, 167 Ariz. 519 , 809 P.2d 944 (1991). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.