Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Marquez, 617 P.2d 787.

37 citing documents.

State v. Campos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Campos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Further, courts do not err by sua sponte finding aggravators that the State “had neither alleged nor attempted to separately prove.” -6 (App. 1980); see also Shattuck, 140 Ariz. at 584 n.1; -14 (App. 1982) (permitting courts to consider a defendant’s criminal history and criminal character in imposing a sentence).
State v. Marques Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Marques Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State of Arizona v. David Soto Cecena 334 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. David Soto Cecena 334 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
P. 26.7(b) (“any reliable, relevant evidence, including hearsay,” may be introduced at pre-sentence hearing); (same).
State v. Gonzales 314 P.3d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Gonzales 314 P.3d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
-7 , -91 (App.1980) (holding that a court can rely on information from a “rap sheet” contained in an unobjected-to presentence report to find prior crimes as aggravators); -38, ¶¶ 27, 29 , -02 (App.2005) (holding that a court can rely on
State v. Olmstead 145 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Olmstead 145 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Resendis-Felix 100 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Estrada 18 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Estrada 18 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
and rejected the “argument that the word ‘alleged’ was meant to require some formal action by the prosecutor before the trial judge could make a finding that aggravating circumstances exist.” Rather, Arizona’s sentencing scheme 1 permits the sentencing court to deviate from the presu
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-512016 923 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-512016 923 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
“Whether hearsay information is ‘reliable’ is largely a matter of discretion with the trial court...” , ( , ).
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. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
see also Van Den Berg, 164 Ariz. at 196 , 791 P.2d at 1079 (failure to object to closing argument precludes consideration on appeal absent fundamental error).
State v. Shuler 780 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Shuler 780 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Willcoxson 751 P.2d 1385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Willcoxson 751 P.2d 1385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Moreno 734 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Moreno 734 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Fatty 724 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Fatty 724 P.2d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Suniga 701 P.2d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Suniga 701 P.2d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Intoxication during the commission of a crime can be a mitigating factor, , as can be the fact that one is under the influence of drugs when a crime is committed.
State v. Conn 669 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Conn 669 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Walton 650 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Walton 650 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Henderson 650 P.2d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Henderson 650 P.2d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
we held that where the record revealed both mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and where the trial court stated the aggravating factors which were found to be true and which were used to enhance punishment, and further stated that he had considered all other circumstances, he had com
State v. Inglish 631 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Inglish 631 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981