Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Pena, 104 P.3d 873.

199 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Bruce Wayne O'Laughlin Jr. 372 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
5 STATE v. GARCIA Decision of the Court ¶15 We test the sufficiency of the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the offense.” ¶ 8 (App. 2005).
State v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶8 “In reviewing the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and reverse only if no substantial evidence supports the conviction.” ¶ 7 (App. 2005).
State v. Dagenais Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dagenais Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
However, as we noted in State v. Pena, even if the court had imposed a mitigated sentence, “that does not necessarily mean that the consideration of [an] improper aggravating factor[] was harmless error.” ¶ 22
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Villalobos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Villalobos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“The substantial evidence required for onviction may be either circumstantial or direct.” ¶ 7
State v. Wells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wells Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Brabham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Brabham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Morales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Morales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Vincent Michael Allen 326 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Vincent Michael Allen 326 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
We will reverse “‘only if no substantial evidence supports the conviction.’”
State of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Daniel Andrew Snider 311 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Daniel Andrew Snider 311 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Pierre Banda 307 P.3d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Pierre Banda 307 P.3d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(error harmless if “absent the error, the court would have reached the same result”).
State of Arizona v. Richard Lee Palmer 270 P.3d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Richard Lee Palmer 270 P.3d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
“When considering claims of insufficient evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and reverse only if no substantial evidence supports the conviction.’ ”
State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasic 265 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasic 265 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Lewis 233 P.3d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Lewis 233 P.3d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
When reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims, “we view the evidence in the light most favox’able to sustaining the verdict and revex-se only if no substantial evidence supports the conviction.” ¶ 7
State of Arizona v. Maxamilano Paredes-Solano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Maxamilano Paredes-Solano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
However, although one division of this court has so concluded, it did so without referring to a prior case that held charging multiple subsections of § 13-1204(A) within a single count rendered the indictment duplicitous, -17, -54 (App. 1986).
State v. Yegan 221 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Yegan 221 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Thus, the court reasoned, it must “assess the vagueness of the catch-all aggravator in Arizona’s sentencing scheme when it alone is used 3 In his opening brief, Zinsmeyer argued that, because the trial court relied on two improper aggravating factors, we must vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing under State v. Peña
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
He also contends insufficient evidence was presented to prove that he was guilty of theft of items valued at $2,000 or more.1 When considering claims of insufficient evidence, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and reverse only if no substantial evidence supports the conviction.”
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Teagle 170 P.3d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Teagle 170 P.3d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
In all criminal cases the unanimous consent of the jurors shall be necessary to render a verdict.” “The jury [must] unanimously find every element of [a crime] beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Peña

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by