Cited by

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

124 citing documents.

State v. Hill 336 P.3d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hill 336 P.3d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
P. 31.26, and order the judgment of conviction modified to delete the requirement that Hill pay for DNA testing, ¶ 14
State v. Garcia 334 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia 334 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 14, this court held that A.R.S.
State v. Brabham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Brabham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Because we presume the jury followed the instructions, ¶ 7, we find no fundamental prejudice by the one improper comment during argument.
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Valenzuela-Valdez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Valenzuela-Valdez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 14, (holding that because § 13-610 does not require the defendant to be assessed the cost of DNA testing there was no basis for ordering him to do so).
State v. Randles 334 P.3d 730 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Randles 334 P.3d 730 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jarrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Pelaez 330 P.3d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Pelaez 330 P.3d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
After the court so ruled, ¶ 14 , there is no basis to require a convicted defendant to pay the cost of his DNA testing.
State v. Jarrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wiggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sutton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wiggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sutton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
§ 13-610, that Sutton “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. Soriano-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Herrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ohanlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Beucler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Beucler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Soriano-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Herrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 14, 307 4 STATE v. HERRERA Decision of the Court P.3d 35, 39 (App. 2013).
State v. Ohanlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Varela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Varela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
§ 13-610 (Supp. 2013), ¶ 14, is moot.
State v. Cummings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ellis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cummings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ellis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See, ¶ 9, (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
1 The State confesses error, ¶ 14, this court held that A.R.S.
State v. Duran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Duran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Powels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Powels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. McGriff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. McGriff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 14, (requiring a defendant to pay for DNA testing is error).
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
After the court imposed Smith’s sentence, ¶ 14, that there is no basis under that section to require a convicted defendant to pay the cost of his DNA testing.
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
§ 13-610.” n.6, ¶ 39, n.6 (2005) (Hurwitz, J., concurring) (“An appellate court may find fundamental error even if the issue is not raised on appeal by a defendant.”); ¶ 14, (holding that A.R.S.