DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Martinez, 100 P.3d 30.

32 citing documents.

  • State v. Pintarich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Pintarich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    - 4 STATE v. PINTARICH Decision of the Court 85, ¶¶ 16-17 (App. 2004) (noting the court may weigh additional aggravating and mitigating circumstances to determine the appropriate sentence within the available range)
  • State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    t held that the imposition of an aggravated sentence without a finding of any aggravating factor by a jury violates the rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), that “any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 10, aff’d in part, P.3d 618 (2005) (citation omitted).
  • State v. Price 145 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • State v. Price 145 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    § 16 , aff'd in pertinent pari
  • P.M. v. Gould 136 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • P.M. v. Gould 136 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • State v. Martinez 115 P.3d 618 Ariz. 2005
  • State v. Martinez 115 P.3d 618 Ariz. 2005
    ) __________________________________) O P I N I O N Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County No. CR 2000-014823(B) The Honorable Eileen S. Willett, Judge SENTENCES AFFIRMED ________________________________________________________________ Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One P.3d 30 (App. 2004) AFFIRMED IN PART ________________________________________________________________ TERRY GODDARD, ATTORNEY GENERAL Phoenix By Randall M. Howe, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section Michae
  • State of Arizona v. Matthew Erich Manzanedo 110 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    30, ¶ 1 (Ct. App. March 4, 2005) (“defendant whose prior convictions constitute an aggravating circumstance” is not constitutionally entitled “to jury findings on the existence of any additional aggravating factors”); -32 (App. 2004) (holding that “a judge’s imposition of an aggravated sentence that falls within the range authorized by a jury’s verdict comports with Blakely; a jury need not find every aggravator upon which a sentencing judge relies”); State ex rel.
  • State v. Cleere 109 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State v. Cleere 109 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    been uniform in holding that Apprendi error can be reviewed for harmless error” and that “other courts, since Blakely , have also applied a harmless error analysis to Blakely violations”); Resendis-Felix, ¶¶ 8-10 , 100 P.3d at 460 ; , -32 (App.2004) (holding that “Blakely error is subject to harmless error or fundamental error analysis and may or may not require reversal based on the facts of a particular case”); , (even assuming defendant’s trial testimo
  • 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
    ¶ 1 , (reviewing claimed Blakely violation for fundamental error); ¶ 1 , (same) (petition for review granted on February 8, 2005).
  • State v. Pitre 107 P.3d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Pitre 107 P.3d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    -78, ¶¶ 8-12 , -09 (App.2005); ¶ 9 , review granted (Feb.
  • State v. Chiappetta 107 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State v. Chiappetta 107 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    (defendant's failure to challenge, as violative of right to trial by jury, trial court's imposition of aggravated prison term waived absent fundamental error).
  • State v. Alire 105 P.3d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State v. Alire 105 P.3d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    y substantial to call for leniency____ [That] process [of weighing aggravating factors against mitigating factors] plays an important part in Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme.”); Timmons, — Ariz. —, ¶ 9, 103 P.3d at 318 (applying identical reasoning in noncapital context); see also State v. Munninger, — Ariz. —, ¶ 25, , — (App.2005); but see State v. Martinez, — Ariz. —, ¶¶ 15-19, -35 (App.2004).
  • 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
    -282, ¶ 1 , -32 (App.2004).
  • State of Arizona v. Derek Scott Oaks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Derek Scott Oaks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    Resendis-Felix, ___ Ariz. ___, ¶ 8, 100 P.3d at 460; see also State v. Henderson, ___ Ariz. ___, ¶¶ 22, 33, 921-22 (App. 2004); State v. Martinez, ___ Ariz. ___, ¶ 21, State 11 v. Miranda-Cabrera, ___ Ariz. ___, ¶ 30
  • State v. Timmons 103 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • Criticized State v. Timmons 103 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State v. Resendis-Felix 100 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • 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
    ¶¶ 8-10 , ¶¶ 8-10 (App.2004) 10 ; ¶ 21 , ¶ 21 (App.2004)