Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ward, 26 P.3d 1158.

32 citing documents.

State v. Mora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Mora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Yug 501 P.3d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Yug 501 P.3d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
DISCUSSION ¶4 We review the superior court’s ruling on presentence incarceration credit de novo, ¶ 5 (App. 2001), and will not disturb the court’s sentencing order absent a clear abuse of discretion, ¶ 5 (App. 2001).
State v. Hoskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hoskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
An abuse of discretion occurs when the “sentencing decision is arbitrary or capricious, or when the court fails to conduct an adequate investigation into the facts relevant to sentencing.” ¶ 6 (App. 2001) ().
State v. Braxton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Braxton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“A trial court has broad discretion in sentencing and, if the sentence imposed is within the statutory limits, we will not disturb the sentence unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.” ¶ 5 (App. 2001).
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶38 “A trial court has broad discretion in sentencing and, if the sentence imposed is within the statutory limits, we will not disturb the sentence unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.” ¶ 5 (App. 2001).
State v. Marlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Marlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Garcia Del Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Garcia Del Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶15 “A trial court has broad discretion in sentencing and, if the sentence imposed is within the statutory limits, we will not disturb the sentence unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.” ¶ 5 (App. 2001) (citations omitted).
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-89, ¶¶ 3-4, -60 (App. 2001) (predecessor statute to § 13-711 does not create a presumption for consecutive or concurrent sentences); see also 2008 Ariz. Sess.
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“[W]e review a court’s sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 8, ( ¶ 5, ).
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Reyes 307 P.3d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Reyes 307 P.3d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Although we review a court’s sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 5 , we review the court’s interpretation of the statute de novo.
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Scott MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Scott MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Robert Michael Hollenback Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Robert Michael Hollenback Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Nelson 90 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Nelson 90 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 3 , (“Generally, when a court construes two or more statutes, it should interpret them harmoniously so as to give effect to all statutes involved.”).
State v. Cazares 72 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Ernesto Luis Cazares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Ernesto Luis Cazares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Cazares 72 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003