Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Trujillo, 257 P.3d 1194.

79 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. William Maurice Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
State v. Stevenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Stevenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Alston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Alston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ware Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ware Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State of Arizona v. Dominick Cooke 562 P.3d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Dominick Cooke 562 P.3d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
(finding prejudicial error when trial court had considered improper reasons to impose harsher sentence).
State v. McGee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. McGee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
the court could have reasonably imposed a lighter sentence.” STATE v. MCGEE Decision of the Court 318 ¶ 16 (App. 2011).
State v. Nunez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Nunez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 15 (App. 2011) (“considering [defendant’s] lack of remorse and his failure to admit guilt” at sentencing “deprived him of a right essential to his defense” and thus constituted fundamental error).
State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Alvarez Bojorquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Alvarez Bojorquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-18, ¶¶ 12, 15 (App. 2011).
State v. Preston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Preston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶20 Determining “whether a disclosure violation has occurred and the propriety of sanctions are within the sound discretion of the trial court.” ¶ 25 (App. 2011); see Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Valvano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Valvano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
–18, ¶¶ 12, 15 (App. 2011).
State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶7 Prejudice exists if, absent the improperly considered aggravating factors, the superior court “could have reasonably imposed a lighter sentence.” ¶ 16 (App. 2011); –57 (App. 1995) (“When a trial court relies on both proper and improper factors in aggravating a sentence, this court will uphold its decision only [when] the record clearly shows the trial court would have reached the same result even without considerat
State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
–18, ¶¶ 10, 15 (App. 2011).
State v. Hoskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hoskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 15 (App. 2011) (remanding for resentencing where “the record plainly indicates that the trial court’s sentencing decision was influenced by [the defendant’s] failure to admit guilt and his lack of remorse; therefore, a reasonable likelihood exists that a sentencing judge, without consideration of those factors
State v. Twiggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Twiggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Torrance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Torrance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 9 (App. 2011) (reviewing the trial court’s consideration of lack of remorse at sentencing for fundamental error when the defendant did not raise the issue below).
State v. Bilducia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Bilducia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 15 (App. 2011) (considering defendant’s lack of remorse as aggravating factor at sentencing constitutes fundamental error).
State v. Mendoza 455 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Mendoza 455 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
his sphere cannot override the constitutional imperative that a defendant cannot be punished “because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do.” Bordenkircher, 434 U.S. at 363; (“A defendant is guilty when convicted and if he chooses not to publicly admit his guilt, that is irrelevant to a sentencing determination.”); ¶ 14 (App. 2011) (“[I]n sentencing a defendant, a court may not consider .
State v. De Groote Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. De Groote Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Criminal defendants enjoy the right to remain silent through the presentence investigation and can “not be penalized for invoking that right.” ¶ 14 (App. 2011) (court may not consider a defendant’s lack of remorse or failure to admit guilt during sentencing).
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
319, ¶¶ 15, 21 (App. 2011) (concluding a court’s consideration of the defendant’s “lack of remorse and his failure to admit guilt” at sentencing was reversible error).
State of Arizona v. Erick Antonio Escalante 425 P.3d 1078 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Erick Antonio Escalante 425 P.3d 1078 Ariz. 2018
he trial court denied appellant ‘a right essential to his defense’ and affected the ‘very foundation of [his] theory of defense.’” (alteration in original)); ¶ 15 (App. 2014) (“In light of [the prosecutor commenting on defendant’s failure to testify], fundamental error occurred because Ramos was deprived of a right essential to his defense.”); ¶ 15 (App. 2011) (concluding that sentencing judge’s consideration of defendant’s lack of remorse and failure to admit guilt to aggravate sentences depriv
State v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Gulli 391 P.3d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Gulli 391 P.3d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
(speculation insufficient to show prejudice).
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016