Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Mileham, 399 P.2d 688.

39 citing documents.

Prutch v. Town of Quartzsite 296 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Prutch v. Town of Quartzsite 296 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
We rejected a similar argument about permissive language of a
Walters v. Maricopa County 990 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Walters v. Maricopa County 990 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Matter of Marquardt 778 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1989
Matter of Marquardt 778 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1989
(“punishable” is defined as “the statutory maximum which could be imposed for the offense which was charged ”) (emphasis added); cf. 1962 Ariz. Sess.Laws (1961 1st Spec.Sess.)
Apache East, Inc. v. Wiegand 580 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Apache East, Inc. v. Wiegand 580 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
P.2d 651 (1950); P.2d 688 (1965).
State v. Howell 486 P.2d 782 Ariz. 1971
State v. Nestor 449 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Nestor 449 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
f the offense so attempted is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for any term less than five years, by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months.” This Court has previously discussed the meaning of the word “punishable”: “In our opinion, the word ‘punishable’ refers to the statutory maximum which could be imposed for the offense which was charged.”
State v. Court of Appeals, Division I 441 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1968
State v. Court of Appeals, Division I 441 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1968
Crouch v. Justice of the Peace Court of the Sixth Precinct 440 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Crouch v. Justice of the Peace Court of the Sixth Precinct 440 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Illustrative of these decisions are, , State v. Sheppard, 2 Ariz.App.
State v. Robinson 433 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Robinson 433 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
McKay v. Industrial Commission 433 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
McKay v. Industrial Commission 433 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Marlin 428 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Anderson 428 P.2d 672 Ariz. 1967
State v. Anderson 428 P.2d 672 Ariz. 1967
State v. Marlin 428 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Cuzick 428 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Cuzick 428 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Sections 12-120.21 and 13-1711
J. H. Welsh & Son Contracting Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 420 P.2d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
J. H. Welsh & Son Contracting Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 420 P.2d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
agraph 2 is as follows: “Appellate jurisdiction in all actions and proceedings originating in or permitted by law to be appealed from the superior court, except criminal actions involving crimes punishable by death or life imprisonment.” In relation to this exception, by like language and as a part of Chapter 102, Section 13-1711
State v. Nixon 420 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
State v. Nixon 420 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
The second, , relates to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain a matter which is in itself an appealable matter.
Hackin v. Superior Court 419 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Hackin v. Superior Court 419 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Searles v. Haldiman 413 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Searles v. Haldiman 413 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
State v. Hawes 413 P.2d 263 Ariz. 1966
State v. Hawes 413 P.2d 263 Ariz. 1966
The case was appealed to Division 1 of the Court of Appeals on the 25th day of January, 1966, and thereafter the Court of Appeals made a , that the Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, and under the authority of A.R.S.
State v. Sheppard 407 P.2d 783 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Sheppard 407 P.2d 783 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. May 404 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. May 404 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
If the offense so attempted is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for any term less than five years, by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months.” In the case of State v. Mileham, decided by this Division of the Court of Appeals and reported in , the interpretation of the word “punishable” was considered by the Court.