Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gunter, 643 P.2d 1034.

45 citing documents.

State v. Petkovic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Petkovic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(concluding the defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the 7 STATE v. PETKOVIC Decision of the Court voluntariness of his plea agreement because his medical records indicated he had taken ant
State of Arizona v. Dominick Cooke 562 P.3d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Dominick Cooke 562 P.3d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
–70 (App. 1982); Hampton, 213 Ariz. at 182, ¶ 65
Doe v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Doe v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(when defendant argued he was impaired by medication when he consented to plea agreement, the result would turn in part on whether he had the "ability to make a rational judgment and understand the consequences of his plea"); Palumbo v. Norstar Bank Upstate N.Y., 622 N.Y.S.2d 263, 264 (App. Div. 1995)
State v. Figueroa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Figueroa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Spence v. Bacal 413 P.3d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Spence v. Bacal 413 P.3d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See State v. Gunter , , 69-70, , 1039-40 (App. 1982) (consecutive sentences when multiple victims harmed by single act does not violate constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy or statutory prohibition against double punishment).
State v. Christie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Christie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Gary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Gary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
§ 13-116 „does not apply to sentences imposed for a single act that harms multiple victims.‟” n.4, n.4 (App. 2005), (interpreting predecessor statute).
State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
therefore, where two persons are assaulted, there are two separate offenses.’ ”)
State of Arizona v. Andrew James Raymond Burdick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Andrew James Raymond Burdick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Johnson 72 P.3d 343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Johnson 72 P.3d 343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
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
See, P.3d 1134 (2001); P.2d 1220 (1984); P.2d 823 (App. 1989); P.2d 482 (App. 1989); P.2d 1034 (App. 1982).
State v. Riley 992 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Riley 992 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Jannamon 819 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Jannamon 819 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
we remarked that “act” and “offense” are not synonymous.
State v. Hamblin 797 P.2d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Hamblin 797 P.2d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Rodriguez-Gonzales 790 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Rodriguez-Gonzales 790 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Gordon 778 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1989
State v. Gordon 778 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1989
State v. White 773 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. White 773 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. D'Ambrosio 750 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Cantua-Ramirez 718 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Cantua-Ramirez 718 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
W. Lafave & A. Scott, Criminal Law, 252-253 (1972)
State v. Mount 719 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Mount 719 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Henley 687 P.2d 1220 Ariz. 1984
State v. Henley 687 P.2d 1220 Ariz. 1984

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by