Cited by

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

73 citing documents.

In Re Nickolas S. 226 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
"We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Appellant.” ¶ 2 , ( , ).
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
sexual conduct with a minor under fifteen years of age”); (defining offense in one count as sexual conduct with minor under fifteen and offense in another count, pertaining to different incident, as sexual conduct with minor 7 In Eagle, ¶___, 994 P.2d at ___, our supreme court considered whether Arizona’s
State v. Garcia 193 P.3d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Garcia 193 P.3d 798 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Stanley 172 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Stanley 172 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 23 , (“This court is bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and has no authority to overturn or refuse to follow its decisions.”).
In re P.D. 166 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re PD 166 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re PD 166 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In re P.D. 166 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Brown 159 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Brown 159 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Olmstead 145 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Olmstead 145 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
148 ¶ 41, (stating that if evidence presented in mitigation is not a specified mitigating circumstance set forth in A.R.S § 13-702(D)(1)—(4), the trial court is not obligated to even consider the evidence though, in its discretion, it may do so pursuant to A.R.S.
State v. Estrada 108 P.3d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Estrada 108 P.3d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 37 , (“If sufficient and appropriate aggravating circumstances exist to justify imposition of an aggravated sentence, we will find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to impose such a sentence.”).
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
that increases the guilt or enormity of a crime or adds to its injurious consequences.” , 147 ¶ 39
State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
at 1186 , and that were utilized by the Arizona Supreme Court in Davis, 206 Ariz. at 381 ¶ 15, 79 P.3d at 68, , 145 ¶ 25