DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. McDonagh, 304 P.3d 212.

32 citing documents.

  • State v. L & L Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. L & L Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    ¶ 9 (App. 2013) (internal quotations omitted).
  • State v. Narayan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Narayan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Cabrera-Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Cabrera-Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶ 12 (2018); ¶ 7 (App. 2013).
  • State v. Shervington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Shervington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶ 18 (App. 2013) (holding that assessments for separate DUI convictions arising from a single act are statutorily required to be concurrent, such that “payment of the Assessments on one count is credited to payment on [the other counts]”).
  • 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
    See, ¶ 3 (App. 2013) (“Consistent with A.R.S.
  • State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Hernandez-Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Hernandez-Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Defendant poses the issue of whether the applicable statute, Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-114.01(A), authorizes the court to impose such assessments “per case” or “per count.” To clarify, Defendant does not maintain the assessments were unauthorized because his convictions arose from a single act, –48, ¶ 1 (App. 2013); instead, he seems to assert the court could have imposed only one $20 assessment because he was convicted of three offenses in a single proceeding.
  • State v. Antwine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Antwine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Valles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Valles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶17 “The failure to impose a sentence in conformity with mandatory sentencing statutes makes the resulting sentence illegal,” and the “[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error,” ¶ 4 (App. 2002); ¶ 7 (App. 2013).
  • State v. Zeitner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Zeitner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    The imposition of an improper or otherwise unauthorized fine “renders a criminal sentence illegal, and an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” -49, ¶ 7 (App. 2013).
  • State v. Gleba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Gleba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    § 13-116.” ¶ 12 (App. 2013) (internal citation and quotations omitted).
  • State v. Lieser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Lieser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    –49, ¶ 7, –14 (App. 2013).
  • State v. Felix 349 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Felix 349 P.3d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Although Felix's failure to object that the aggravated assault does not qualify as a dangerous crime against children limits our review to fundamental error, see Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567, ¶ 19 , 115 P.3d at 607 , an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error, ¶ 7
  • State v. Fingi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Fingi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    (accepting that an assessment is “tantamount to a fine, which is a pecuniary punishment and a sanction.”); –50, ¶ 11, –15 (App. 2013) (ruling that the DUI Abatement Fund, Prison Construction & Operations Fund and General Fund/Public Safety Equipment Fund assessments imposed pursuant to the aggravated DUI statute are “sentences”).
  • State v. Jones 306 P.3d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Jones 306 P.3d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    (‘“Section 13-116 traces its roots to 1901’ and ‘is paramount in the statutory scheme of sentencing.’ ”) (quoting Ar noldi 176 Ariz. at 241, 242 , 860 P.2d at 508, 509 ).