Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tschilar, 27 P.3d 331.

82 citing documents.

State v. Sanders Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Sanders Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 39 (App. 2001) (); see Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Wilkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Wilkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Emedi 484 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Emedi 484 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
§ 13-701(D) but may be used under the catch-all category); ¶ 33 (same for the number of victims).
State v. Gutierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Gutierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 8 (App. 2012) (holding that, while the statute requires another person be placed at risk, the name or exact identity of the victim is not a required element); ¶ 34 (App. 2001) (stating that a victim is a necessary element where the statute required the prohibited conduct be committed against “another person”).
State v. Knight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Knight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
A jury instruction is appropriate if it is “reasonably supported by the evidence.” ¶ 36 (App. 2001).
State v. Koch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Koch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
The Court finds that the presumed sentence, which is the presumptive sentence is appropriate.” A trial court has “discretion to consider various factors related to the offense and the offender when it imposes a sentence within the range of punishment prescribed by the statute.” ¶ 18 (App. 2001).
State v. Chavarria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Chavarria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Meyers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Meyers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 13-3553 requires actual living human being), ¶ 34, (because kidnapping and aggravated assault statutes prohibit conduct committed against “another person,” convictions under both statutes require a victim), and State v. Olquin, 216 Ariz 250, 254, ¶ 21, (statutes proscribing offenses against “anothe
State v. Koley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Koley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“[W]hether a particular aggravating factor used by the court is an element of the offense and whether the court properly can use such a factor in aggravation are questions of law, which we review de novo.” ¶ 32 (App. 2001).
State v. Bucholtz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bucholtz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gulley 382 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gulley 382 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
mitted the crime charged without having committed the lesser one.” ¶ 7 (2015) (); -30 (App. 2014) (“[T]he greater offense must require each element of the lesser offense plus one or more additional elements not required by the lesser offense.”) ( ¶ 39 (App. 2001), ¶ 6 (App. 1998)).
State v. Garcia 334 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia 334 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 39, 3Although Garcia also argues impermissible double punishment because possession of the truck was incidental to taking the truck, Garcia received concurrent sentences for armed robbery of the man with the truck and theft of means of transportation, meaning this argument is not well taken
State v. Wiggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wiggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
3 STATE v. WEBB Decision of the Court even if they also constitute elements of the offense); ¶ 33, (same).4 ¶7 Webb first claims the trial court abused its discretion in finding substantial physical harm as an aggravating circumstance.
State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lucas 321 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lucas 321 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 25, (App. 3 STATE v. LUCAS Opinion of the Court 2001).
State of Arizona v. Louis John Felix 317 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Louis John Felix 317 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
§ 13-1304 so as to elevate the unlawful imprisonment to kidnapping.’” Hargrave, 234 P.3d at 580
State of Arizona v. Jose Dejesus Villegas-Rojas 296 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Jose Dejesus Villegas-Rojas 296 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
on which Olquin relies for the general proposition that a 7 victim is an element of a crime against another person, does not state that the name of the victim is a necessary element.