DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Meador, 645 P.2d 1257.

50 citing documents.

  • State v. Bilducia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Bilducia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    must satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause.”); -47 (App. 1982) (aggravating circumstances must be true and supported by reasonable evidence in the record); see also Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741 (1948) (denial of due process to base sentence on “materially untrue” assumptions about defendant’s criminal record).
  • State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    The state counters that “reviewing courts have undertaken a much more holistic and far less rigorous analysis of this issue in the non-capital context,” -95, -53 (App. 1984); -46, -04 (App. 1981).4 And, subsequent jurisprudence suggests our supreme court was compelled to set forth a narrowing construction to the especially cruel, heinous, or depraved aggravating factor to comply with Eight
  • State v. Barraza 170 P.3d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Barraza 170 P.3d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    See, , (affirming an aggravated sentence for custodial interference on the grounds that the crime was cruel and depraved, without consideration of the defendant’s relishment, gratuitous violence, or mutilation in the offense); , superseded on other grounds by A.R.S.
  • State of Arizona v. Juan Manuel Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Juan Manuel Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    At the time the trial court sentenced Molina, such factors needed only be supported by “reasonable evidence.” (holding that aggravating circumstances need only be true and supported by reasonable evidence); but see 2005 Ariz. Sess.
  • State v. Timmons 103 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State v. Timmons 103 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    ¶ 15 In addition, the trial court’s aggravating-circumstance findings could have been based merely on *398 “reasonable evidence in the record,” , , and not satisfied the higher, beyond-a-reasonable-donbt standard Blakely and Apprendi mandate for jury findings.
  • State v. Resendis-Felix 100 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State v. Resendis-Felix 100 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    Indeed, the trial court’s aggravating-circumstance findings could have been based merely on “reasonable evidence in the record,” , , and not satisfied the higher, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard Blakely and Apprendi mandate for jury findings.
  • State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    P.2d 1353 (App. 1983) (death of victim both element of offense of second-degree murder and aggravating factor, § 13-702(C)(1); knife properly used to enhance sentence under § 13-604 and aggravate it under § 13-702(C)(2)); P.2d 592 (App. 1983) (sentence enhanced and aggravated for prior felony convictions, § 13-702(C)(11)); P.2d 1257 (App. 1982) (victim’s death both element of offense of second-degree murder and basis for aggravating sentence, § 13-702(C)(1)); n.1, n.1 (1992) (“‘serious physical
  • State v. Viramontes 64 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Viramontes 64 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2003
  • 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
    ¶ 8 In a noncapital case, the sentencing judge’s discretion is broader; aggravating circumstances need only be found to be true and to be supported by reasonable evidence in the record, and they need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, , as they do in capital cases.
  • In Re Varbel 897 P.2d 1337 Ariz. 1995
  • In Re Varbel 897 P.2d 1337 Ariz. 1995
    Because even under our criminal jurisprudence (except in death penalty cases), aggravating circumstances need only be "supported by reasonable evidence,” , ( , ), it is difficult to believe that a higher standard of proof could or should be required in attorney discipline cases.
  • State v. Elliget 864 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Elliget 864 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
    In making this finding, the trial court may “consider all evidence and information presented at all stages of the trial together with all probation and presentence reports.” Turner, 141 Ariz. at 475 , 687 P.2d at 1230 , -47 , -61 (App.1982).
  • State v. Smith 831 P.2d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Smith 831 P.2d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Lara 830 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Lara 830 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1992
    See, -07 , -07 (App.1988) (negligent homicide); , (second degree murder); , (first degree burglary); , (second degree murder); , (second degree burglary).
  • State v. Perez Lara 823 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Perez Lara 823 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    (death of victim is an appropriate aggravating factor for a second degree murder sentence); , (same); , (death of victim is a proper aggravating factor for negligent homicide).
  • State v. Webb 793 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Webb 793 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Bruggeman 779 P.2d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Bruggeman 779 P.2d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    In determining whether an aggravating circumstance exists, a trial judge “may consider all evidence and information presented at all stages of the trial together with all probation and presentence reports____” Turner, 141 Ariz. at 475 , 687 P.2d at 1230
  • Smith v. Superior Court 725 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1986
  • Smith v. Superior Court 725 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1986
    (similar language in § 13-702(D)(9) *69 grants wide discretion in consideration of aggravating circumstances).
  • State v. Germain 723 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Germain 723 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    Further, , , we extended Bly to second degree murder convictions, holding that the infliction of serious bodily injury or death can be used as an aggravating factor, even though it is a necessary element of the crime, because our legislature h
  • 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. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
    Turner, 141 Ariz. at 475 , 687 P.2d at 1230 (-47 , -61 (App.1982)).
  • 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
    The trial court, for instance, may consider all evidence and information presented at all stages of the trial, together with all probation and presentence reports, , or factors like the general moral character of the defendant
  • State v. Shattuck 684 P.2d 154 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Shattuck 684 P.2d 154 Ariz. 1984
    (prior incidents not resulting in convictions can be used in increasing the sentence); , (extensively discussing A.R.S.
  • State v. Turner 687 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Turner 687 P.2d 1225 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Davis 654 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Davis 654 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982