Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Long, 83 P.3d 618.

75 citing documents.

State v. Ruiz-Solis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
–48, ¶¶ 39–40 (App. 2004); ¶ 215 (2022) (stating the presence of an accomplice is enough to support the aggravating factor, even if they are not liable based on their actions); ¶ 28 (App. 2005) (allowing accomplice aggrava
State of Arizona v. William Maurice Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
State of Arizona v. William Maurice Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Vanheemskerck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Vanheemskerck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Pariseau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Distinguished State v. Pariseau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
We are “bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and ha[ve] no authority to overturn or refuse to follow its decisions.” ¶ 23 (App. 2004).
State v. Quijada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Followed State v. Quijada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Mayberry v. Stambaugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Mayberry v. Stambaugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 13 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 23 (App. 2004)).
State v. Osgood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Osgood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
We are “bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and ha[ve] no authority to overturn or refuse to follow its decisions.” ¶ 23 (App. 2004).
State v. Martinez-Tapia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Martinez-Tapia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
n.6 ¶ 42 (App. 2004) (citing A.R.S.
State v. Etienne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Etienne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
VIII; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 15; ¶ 21 n.2 (App. 2004) (treating the provisions as coterminous).
State v. Christensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Christensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 24 (App. 1998); ¶ 41 (App. 2004) (holding the court must consider mitigating evidence but need not find the evidence mitigating).
State v. Hunter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hunter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 23 (App. 2004) (“This court is bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and has no authority to overturn or refuse to follow its decisions.”).
State v. Pegeese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Pegeese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Barrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Barrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 23 (App. 2004) ("This court is bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and has no authority to overturn or refuse to follow its decisions.").
State v. Wadi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wadi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“This court is bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and has no authority to overturn or refuse to follow its decisions.” ¶ 23 (App. 2004).
State v. Healer 440 P.3d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Healer 440 P.3d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. McPherson , , ¶ 13, (quoting State v. Long , , ¶ 23, ).
State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
A “trial court need only consider evidence offered in mitigation; it need not find the evidence mitigating.” ¶ 41 (App. 2004).
Yuma Mesa v. Bushong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Yuma Mesa v. Bushong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mattison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mattison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 37 (App. 2004) ("Absent finding a clear abuse of discretion, we will not modify a sentence that is within the statutory limits.").
Musselman v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Musselman v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. George Anthony Dominguez Jr. 338 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. George Anthony Dominguez Jr. 338 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(discussing 9 STATE v. DOMINGUEZ Opinion of the Court predecessor statute); (same).
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
4 n. 4 , , 374 n. 4 (2004); , (this court bound by opinions of our highest state court).
State of Arizona v. Carlos J. Torres 314 P.3d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Carlos J. Torres 314 P.3d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Roosevelt Arthur Williams v. State of Arizona 303 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Roosevelt Arthur Williams v. State of Arizona 303 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
2011) (adaptive functioning “ ‘refers to how effectively individuals cope with common life demands and how well they meet the standards of personal independence expected of someone in their particular age group, socioc *234 ultural background, and community setting’ ”), quoting DSM-IV 42; , (“This court is bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and has no authority to overturn or refuse to follow its decisions.”).
State v. Braidick 295 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Braidick 295 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 23 , (“This court is bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and has no authority to overturn or refuse to follow its decisions.”).
STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
“This court is bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and has no authority to overturn or refuse to follow its decisions.”
State v. Martin 235 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010