Cited by

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

79 citing documents.

State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 9 (App. 2011) ( ¶ 19 (2005)).
State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Thues, 203 Ariz. at 340, ¶ 4 (citing Cox, 201 Ariz. at 468, ¶ 13); ¶ 15 (App. 2011) (holding consideration of prohibited aggravating factors deprives the defendant of a right essential to his defense and constitutes fundamental error) (citations omitted).
State v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ballesteros Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ballesteros Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In addition, pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) and our order, - 19, ¶¶ 17-21 (App. 2011).
State v. Sasek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sasek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dagenais Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dagenais Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 9, (reviewing the trial court’s consideration of lack of remorse for fundamental error because the appellant failed to raise the issue below); 3 STATE v. DAGENAIS Decision of the Cou
State v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
However, a “convicted defendant’s decision not to publicly admit guilt is irrelevant to a sentencing determination[.]” ¶ 12 (2011) ( (App. 1991)).
State v. Costa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Costa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Javier Solis 338 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Javier Solis 338 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
§ 31-221, which requires ADOC to “maintain a master record file on each person who is committed to the department.” n.7, -1200 n.7 (App. 2011).
State v. Yazzie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Yazzie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 37, (“[T]he law allows a trial court to select between the dangerous and repetitive sentencing options, but does not require that if the court chooses to sentence a defendant as a repeat offender, it must void the jury’s finding of dangerousness.”).
State v. Piotrowski 315 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Piotrowski 315 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶¶ 35-37 , (holding that a defendant found guilty by a jury of aggravated assault, a dangerous offense, could be sentenced as a non-dangerous, repetitive offender); , (same).
State v. Williams 302 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Williams 302 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Loney 287 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Loney 287 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012