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. Rybolt, 650 P.2d 1258.

32 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Michael Lorenzo Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • State of Arizona v. Michael Lorenzo Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    4 ¶7 P.2d 1011 (1984), the defendant claimed the jury instructions had allowed the jury to convict him based on acts not charged in the indictment.
  • State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    ¶¶ 10, 12, -36 (2009); -79, -61 (App. 1982) (claim not raised at trial that jury instructions impermissibly amended an indictment reviewed for fundamental error), P.2d 1011 (1984).6 ¶34 Fimbres contends that being convicted of a unindicted of
  • State v. Miranda 10 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Miranda 10 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Olea 897 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Olea 897 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    The trial court’s deletion of the words “.45 grams of’ did not result in a trial on “an offense different from that with which (defendant) was originally charged.”
  • 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. White 770 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. White 770 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1989
    12 , overruled on other grounds, , our Court of Appeals addressed the very issue raised by the defendant here.
  • State v. Driggs 745 P.2d 135 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Driggs 745 P.2d 135 Ariz. 1987
    rev’d on other grounds, , adopted
  • State v. Driggs 745 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Driggs 745 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    Later, , rev’d on other grounds, , adopted, , it was held that a subsequent offense could be used to enhance punishment for a prior, principal offense.
  • State v. O'Haire 720 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. O'Haire 720 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    reversed on other grounds
  • State v. Sands 700 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Sands 700 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    involved two separate rapes with different victims, one in the morning and one in the evening of the same day.
  • State v. Diaz 688 P.2d 1011 Ariz. 1984
  • Overruled State v. Diaz 688 P.2d 1011 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Avila 686 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Avila 686 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    1638 , 71 L.Ed.2d 871 (1982)
  • State v. Buchholz 678 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Buchholz 678 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    § 13-604(H) has been "reviewed and upheld on several occasions by the courts of this state
  • State v. Hanson 674 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Hanson 674 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    the court held that it was not necessary under this statute that the offense treated as a prior conviction have actually occurred first.
  • State v. Roylston 660 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Roylston 660 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Rodgers 655 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Rodgers 655 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982