Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Reyes, 307 P.3d 35.

124 citing documents.

State v. Navarrette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Navarrette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 14 (App. 2013) (“[B]ecause § 13-610 does not 3 STATE v. NAVARRETTE Decision of the Court require a convicted defendant to be assessed the cost of his DNA testing, there was no basis for the provision to be imposed.”).
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 14 (App. 2013) (holding that A.R.S.
State v. Nevarez-Laboy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Nevarez-Laboy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 14 (App. 2013) (finding no statutory basis to order a defendant to pay DNA testing cost).
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
State v. Santos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Santos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 14 (App. 2013) (“[B]ecause § 13-610 does not require a convicted defendant to be assessed the cost of his DNA testing, there was no basis for the provision to be imposed.”).
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 14 (App. 2013); ¶ 17 (App. 2014).
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In State v. Reyes, we held that “[t]he legislature did not direct that convicted felons pay the cost of the testing.” ¶ 11 (App. 2013).
Hiskett v. Hon. lambert/state 451 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hiskett v. Hon. lambert/state 451 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
supports the proposition that counties are not authorized to shift the costs of pretrial electronic monitoring to defendants under § 13-3967(E)(1).
State v. Villa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Villa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 11 (App. 2013) (stating that the legislature did not intend convicted felons to pay the cost of DNA testing).
State v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Vaughn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Garcia-Corrales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Garcia-Corrales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Nissley 362 P.3d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nissley 362 P.3d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
472 ¶ 14, this court held that AR.S.
State v. Giron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Giron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The State confesses error, ¶ 14, where we held that § 13–610 does not authorize the court to impose a DNA collection fee on a convicted defendant.
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 13–610, that Patton “submit to DNA testing for law enforcement identification purposes and pay the applicable fee for the cost of that testing.” ¶ 14, this court held that A.R.S.
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“[W]e review a court’s sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 8, ( ¶ 5, ).
State v. Rozenman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rozenman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tomlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tomlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Raimonde Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Raimonde Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Coulter 339 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Laakmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Laakmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 14, this court held that A.R.S.
State v. Coulter 339 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buchanan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buchanan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. George Anthony Dominguez Jr. 338 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. George Anthony Dominguez Jr. 338 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by