Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Harm, 340 P.3d 1110.

343 citing documents.

State v. Conchola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Conchola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Gorman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Gorman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Substantial evidence describes “such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 11 (App. 2015) (citation omitted).
State v. Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
During a search incident to arrest, a small bag containing a green leafy 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Crawford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Crawford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction[] with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Gipson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Gipson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Botsford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Botsford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
2 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction[] with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
France v. gila/arizona Counties Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
France v. gila/arizona Counties Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 19 & n.4 (App. 2015) (“[W]hen the legislature chooses different words within a statutory scheme, we presume those distinctions are meaningful and evidence an intent to give a different meaning and consequence to the alternate language.”) (citations omitted).
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
At some point, Workum advised Chad that “if [Shiner] 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Mendoza 455 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Mendoza 455 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Vega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Vega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Amey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Amey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Hand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 2, n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Bieganski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 2, n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Bieganski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 2, n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Getscher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Getscher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction[] with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Frazer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 2, n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court revoked Garcia’s probation, sentenced him to a mitigated term of 1.5 years’ imprisonment for the 2011 offense, and 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Noriega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Noriega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
The jury convicted Noriega of 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 2, n.2 (App. 2015) ().
State v. Pintarich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Pintarich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶3 The State charged Pintarich with one count of possession of a dangerous drug for sale (methamphetamine), one count of possession of a 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) ().