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. Webb, 793 P.2d 105.

34 citing documents.

  • State v. Fordson 555 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Fordson 555 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    (The challenged statement was offered to establish that the declarant was concealing the crime.).
  • State v. Alvarez Bojorquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Alvarez Bojorquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    While the superior court must consider relevant evidence offered in mitigation, it “is not obligated to find mitigating factors just because evidence is presented.” (“The consideration of mitigating circumstances is solely within the discretion of the court.”).
  • State v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Considering the discretion with which the superior court is vested in considering mitigating circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion.
  • State v. Morrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Morrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ntencing court, however, “is not required to find that mitigating circumstances exist merely because mitigating evidence is presented; the court is only required to give the evidence due consideration,” and the weight to be given any mitigating evidence “rests within the trial court’s sound discretion.” ¶ 8, (“The consideration of mitigating circumstances is solely within the discretion of the trial court.” (citation omitted)).
  • State v. Pena 104 P.3d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Pena 104 P.3d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    (citations omitted; emphasis added).
  • State v. Long 83 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Long 83 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    However, “[t]he consideration of mitigating circumstances is solely within the discretion of the court.” , (citation omitted).
  • State v. Cazares 72 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Ernesto Luis Cazares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Ernesto Luis Cazares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State v. Cazares 72 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State v. Sierra-Cervantes 37 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Sierra-Cervantes 37 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Cruz 938 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Cruz 938 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Cid 892 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Cid 892 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    In light of the discretion with which trial courts are vested in considering mitigating circumstances, , the defendant’s claim cannot be sustained.
  • State v. Carbajal 868 P.2d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Carbajal 868 P.2d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Duarte 798 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Duarte 798 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1990
    See, , -320, -1019 (App.1990); -330 , -1339 (App.1990); -357 , -114 (App.1990); see also State v. Burt, 60 Ariz.Adv.Rep.
  • State v. Wideman 798 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Wideman 798 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Slemmer 802 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Slemmer 802 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990