Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cuen, 761 P.2d 160.

42 citing documents.

State v. Cline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Cline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Wan Wagoner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Wan Wagoner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 12 (App. 2021) (–88 (App. 1988)).
State v. Yug 501 P.3d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Explained State v. Yug 501 P.3d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
we explained that § 13-712(B) is based on the equal-protection principle that a defendant who cannot afford bail may not be made to “serve longer in custody through presentence incarceration than similarly sentenced defendants able to post bail.” Id.
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Sanders Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Sanders Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(purpose of presentence incarceration credit is to reduce the number of days served in prison by an inmate by the number of days the inmate spent in presentence custody); (sentencing court may not give double credit for presentence time served when consecutive sentences are imposed).
State v. Beard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Beard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mammoth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mammoth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
The court found that Mamoth was not entitled to “double credit” P.2d 104 (App. 1997); P.2d 160 (App. 1988); P.2d 825 (App. 1992).
State v. Fahr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Fahr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Falcone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Falcone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“[M]ultiple credit should not be given against later consecutive sentences pertaining to the convicted person.”).
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(when 4Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13-701(C) (West 2008) governed the presumptive sentence for a “first [felony] offense” and provided for 3.5 years’ imprisonment for a class 3 felony, and 2.5 years’ imprisonment for a class 4 felony—counts 1 and 2 a
State v. Hon kiley/cuen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hon kiley/cuen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Mayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Mayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“When consecutive sentences are imposed, a defendant is not entitled to presentence incarceration credit on more than one of those sentences.” ( ).
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. McClure 938 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. McClure 938 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
This is the “double credit windfall” , (Court may not give double credit for presentence time served when consecutive sentences are imposed.).
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
§ 13-703(A); , (defendant originally sentenced to death on first-degree murder conviction; conviction reversed and defendant later convicted of second-degree murder; trial court credited time spent on death row to sentence on second-degree murder); , (holding that "A.R.S.
State v. Chavez 834 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Chavez 834 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(“A.R.S.”) § 13-709(B) (1989)
State v. Bravo 829 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Distinguished State v. Bravo 829 P.2d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Jackson 821 P.2d 1374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Jackson 821 P.2d 1374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991