Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cox, 37 P.3d 437.

50 citing documents.

State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“An illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” ¶ 13 (App. 2002).
State v. Sy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Sy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Tejeda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Tejeda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Cameron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cameron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 17 (1998) (“Even when the sentence imposed is within the trial judge’s authority, if the record is unclear whether the judge knew he had discretion to act otherwise, the case should be remanded for resentencing.”); ¶ 13 (App. 2002).
State v. Wylie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wylie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Shervington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Shervington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
6 STATE v. WOODS Decision of the Court ¶15 “The failure to impose a sentence in conformity with mandatory sentencing statutes makes the resulting sentence illegal.” ¶ 13 (App. 2002) (“The sentencing process was fundamentally flawed because the trial court used sentencing ranges other than those mandated for the offenses in question.”) ().
State v. Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Generally, “[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” ¶ 4 (App. 2002) ( ¶ 13 (App. 2002)).
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Wiggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wiggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Stephen Vincent Haverstick 318 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Stephen Vincent Haverstick 318 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
“An illegal sentence constitutes fundamental[, prejudicial] error.”
State v. Martinez 245 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Martinez 245 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Rogers v. Cota 219 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Rogers v. Cota 219 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 18 , (“Because proof of a § 13-604.02(B) allegation increases the statutory minimum penalty but not the statutory maximum, Apprendi does not require that the allegation be decided by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt____”).
State v. Smith 194 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2008
State v. Smith 194 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2008
10 Cox, -68, ¶¶ 11-13, -41 (App. 2002) (same).
State v. Smith 173 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Smith 173 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
l error.); , 340 n. 2, ¶¶ 1, 4, , 369 n. 2 (App.2002) (holding that a defendant’s stipulation to a prior Proposition 200 drug paraphernalia conviction is not invited error and his failure to argue in the trial court that a Prop 200 conviction may not be used to enhance his sentence under § 13-604(B) is reviewable only for fundamental error); -68, ¶¶ 11-13 , -41 (App.2002) (Although the defendant did not object in the trial court and his sentences did not exceed the legal máximums he would be eli
State v. Febles 115 P.3d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Febles 115 P.3d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 4 , (sentence enhancement); ¶ 13 , ("sentencing process was fundamentally flawed" due to consideration of incorrect sentencing range, even though length of sentence did not exceed statutory maximum).
State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Martinez 100 P.3d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Martinez 100 P.3d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 18 , (Apprendi does not require jury finding on A. R.S.
State v. Viramontes 93 P.3d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Viramontes 93 P.3d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
¶ 10 In support of its argument that an illegal sentence includes any sentence imposed by an illegal process
State v. Dewakuku 92 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Dewakuku 92 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
in support of its contention that a jury finding of release status under A.R.S.
State v. Hung Manh Nguyen 93 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Hung Manh Nguyen 93 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
shall be sentenced to a term of not less than the presumptive sentence authorized for the offense____” ¶ 18 , (“a § 13-604.02(B) allegation increases the statutory minimum penalty but not the statutory maximum”).
State v. Brown 70 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Brown 70 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
(no Apprendi violation when judge’s presentenee factual findings “did not increase the statutory maximum prison sentence [defendant] faced”).
State v. Thues 54 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Thues 54 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Benenati 52 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Benenati 52 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(suggesting Hurley remains good law).