Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fernandez, 169 P.3d 641.

97 citing documents.

State v. Welfenberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 32 (App. 2007); ¶ 12 (App. 2005) (“The imposition of an illegal sentence is fundamental error.”).
State v. Melendez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Melendez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
COMMANS v. DUNBAR Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
COMMANS v. DUNBAR Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Although Commans has not raised these errors on appeal, “we will not ignore [fundamental error] when we find it.” ¶ 32 (App. 2007).
State v. Ordway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ordway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 8 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).
State v. Schalk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Schalk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Maser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Maser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“Although we do not search the record for fundamental error, we will not ignore it when we find it.” ¶ 32 (App. 2007).
Bonam v. Bonam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Bonam v. Bonam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 32 (App. 2007) (“Although we do not 5 BONAM v. BONAM Decision of the Court search the record for fundamental error, we will not ignore it when we find it.”).
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
at 447, ¶ 21; ¶ 32 (App. 2007) (“[W]e will not ignore [fundamental error] when we find it.”).
State v. Renteria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Renteria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 30 (App. 2007) (“attempted first-degree murder did not require .
State v. Tejeda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Tejeda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
We will not ignore fundamental error when we encounter it, ¶ 32 (App. 2007), and we must correct an “illegal sentence .
State v. Emedi 484 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Emedi 484 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
“Although we do not search the record for fundamental error, we will not ignore it when we find it.” ¶ 32 (App. 2007).
State v. Beatte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Beatte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
What conduct amounts to coercion is particularly dependent upon the facts of each case.” Rodriguez-Rosario, 219 Ariz. at 115, ¶ 10 (omission in original) ().
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“Although we do not search the record for fundamental error, we will not ignore it when we find it.” ¶ 32 (App. 2007).
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
Additionally, Champagne’s counsel expressed fear that “further argument [would] invade the province of the jurors and actually interfere with their jury deliberations.” ¶64 remanded for reconsideration on other grounds, No. CR-03-0007-PR, 2003 WL 21242145 (Ariz. May 28, 2003), the court ordered supplemental argument, permitting each side five minutes to respond to the jury’s question.
State v. Tapia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Tapia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 32 (App. 2007); ¶ 4 (App. 2002).
State v. Mora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Mora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
could be committed without targeting persons."); ¶ 27 (App. 2007) ("[T]he finding of a 5 STATE v. MORA Decision of the Court 'dangerous crime against a child' was inherent in the jury verdict that [defendant] was guilty of intentional, premeditated, attempted murde
State v. Eisenmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Eisenmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“Although we do not search the record for fundamental error, we will not ignore it when we find it.” ¶ 32 (App. 2007).
State v. Urrea 398 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Urrea 398 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
But Urrea has not argued fundamental error, and although we will not ignore such error if we see it, , Urrea has failed to show error of any kind occurred here.
Crystal E. v. Department of Child Safety 390 P.3d 1222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Crystal E. v. Department of Child Safety 390 P.3d 1222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 32 , (“Although we do not search the record for fundamental error, we will not ignore it when we find it.”).
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
(appellate court will not ignore fundamental error if found).
State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II 363 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II 363 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
§ 13-3417(A); (“Although we do not search the record for fundamental error, we will not ignore it when we find it.”); n.2, n.2 (2005) (“‘It is .
State of Arizona v. Michael Anthony Salcido 362 P.3d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Anthony Salcido 362 P.3d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
(appellate court will not ignore fundamental error if found).
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
error); Martin, 171 Ariz. at 160 (reversing after determining evidence “insufficient to support a violation of [probation condition] as phrased in the probation document”); ¶ 3 (App. 2015) (determining failure to specifically argue fundamental error does not require court to deliberately overlook fundamental error when it is found); ¶ 32 (App. 2007) (vacating and remanding for resentencing after explaining “[a]lthough we do not search the record for fundamental error, we will not ignore it when
State v. Stuart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Stuart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-55, ¶ 32, -51 (App. 2007) (court will not ignore fundamental error if it sees it).
State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz 342 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz 342 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
We do not ignore fundamental error when we find it, and a double jeopardy violation is fundamental, prejudicial error
State of Arizona v. Javier Solis 338 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by