Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Booker, 135 P.3d 57.

40 citing documents.

State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
We review the court’s decision “for abuse of discretion if it involves a discretionary issue, but review constitutional issues and purely legal issues de novo.” ¶ 10 (App. 2006).
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Havatone 443 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Havatone 443 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Havatone , 241 Ariz. at 509 , ¶ 11 , 389 P.3d at 1254 ; State v. Booker , , 504, ¶ 10, , 59 (App. 2006).
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
We review the denial of a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (2013), but review the court’s legal conclusions de novo, ¶ 10 (App. 2006).
State V, Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State V, Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 19 (App. 2007); ¶ 10 (App. 2006).
State v. Snow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Snow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 26 (2016) (as amended); ¶ 10 (App. 2006).
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶13 However, “[a] Fourth Amendment violation does not mandate reflexive exclusion of evidence.” ¶ 12 (App. 2006) (citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Thomas L. Dean 388 P.3d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State of Arizona v. Thomas L. Dean 388 P.3d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
"We review the court’s decision ‘for abuse of discretion if it involves a discretionary issue, but review constitutional issues and purely legal issues de novo.’ ”
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla ex rel. County of Maricopa 371 P.3d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla ex rel. County of Maricopa 371 P.3d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“We review purely legal or constitutional issues de novo.” Padilla, 237 Ariz. at 266, ¶ 8 , 349 P.3d at 1103 ( ¶ 10 , ).
State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“We review purely legal or constitutional issues de novo.” Padilla, 237 Ariz. at 266, ¶ 8 ( ¶ 10 (App. 2006)).
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Padilla 349 P.3d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Padilla 349 P.3d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
We review purely legal or constitutional issues de novo, ¶ 10, but defer to the trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, ¶ 28
State v. Ellis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ellis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Yonkman 274 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Yonkman 274 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Blakley 243 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Blakley 243 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
for abuse of discretion if it involves a discretionary issue, but review constitutional issues and purely legal issues de novo.”
State v. Guillen 223 P.3d 658 Ariz. 2010
State v. Guillen 223 P.3d 658 Ariz. 2010
Exclusion deters police misconduct “by removing the incentive for such conduct.” ¶ 13, (citing United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347 (1974)); 1 Suppression, however, is not required if the unconstitutional
State v. Guillen 213 P.3d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Guillen 213 P.3d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
We 'review the court’s decision “for abuse of discretion if it involves a discretionary issue, but review constitutional issues and purely legal issues de novo.”
State v. Allen 166 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Allen 166 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Levens 152 P.3d 1222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Levens 152 P.3d 1222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Anthony Shariff Gay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Anthony Shariff Gay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
We review the court’s decision “for abuse of discretion if it involves a discretionary issue, but review constitutional issues and purely legal issues de novo.”
State of Arizona v. Ricky Lee Sabin 146 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Ricky Lee Sabin 146 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
See Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 10-11, 115 S. Ct. 1185, 1191 (1995); United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348, 94 S. Ct. 613, 620 (1974); -80, -10 (1980)