Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Suniga, 701 P.2d 1197.

52 citing documents.

State v. Melendez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Melendez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
absence from a proceeding is “voluntary if the defendant had actual notice of the date and time of the proceeding, notice of the right to be present, and notice that the proceeding would go forward in the defendant’s absence.” The rule “creates an inference and does not require the trial court to make a finding that a defendant has voluntarily absented himself before proceeding.” –92 (App. 1985).
State v. Cordova-Wilkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Cordova-Wilkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(holding dangerousness finding “implicit” in guilty verdict for aggravated assault by use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument); State v. Begaye, 1 CA-CR 23-0180, 2024 WL 2783771, at *5, ¶ 25 (Ariz. App. May 30, 2024) (mem.
State of Arizona v. Analysya Contreras 557 P.3d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Analysya Contreras 557 P.3d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
(court properly inferred voluntary absence where counsel offered no explanation for defendant’s 2Contreras interprets Sainz to hold that a trial court must inquire further into the reasons for a defendant’s absence before proceeding in absentia when counsel expresses a general concern that t
State v. McKinley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. McKinley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument”); (finding dangerous offense “implicit” in guilty verdict for aggravated assault by use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument).
State v. Alvarez Bojorquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Alvarez Bojorquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
The sentencing court 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.” 5 STATE v. ALVAREZ BOJORQUEZ Decision of the Court (cleaned up).
State v. Mendoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Mendoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Ruiz-Gastelum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Ruiz-Gastelum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“[N]o specific finding of dangerousness is required where an element of the offense charged requires proof of the dangerous nature of the felony.”); (dangerousness finding implicit in guilty verdict for aggravated assault using a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument).
State v. Dagenais Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dagenais Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
ntencing.”), superseded by statute as stated in Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. 474 (2010); -64, -80 (App. 1987) (finding it permissible to aggravate a sentence based on 5 STATE v. DAGENAIS Decision of the Court perjurious testimony); (“The trial court .
State v. Talibuddin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Talibuddin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bryant 200 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Jerry Don Bryant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Jerry Don Bryant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Similarly, -93, -01 (App. 1985), the defendant was resentenced within sixty days.
State v. Bryant 200 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Similarly, -93 , -01 (App.1985), the defendant was resentenced within sixty days.
State v. Walker 95 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Walker 95 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
(insufficiency of defendant’s proffered excuses supported finding of voluntary absence).
State v. Viramontes 93 P.3d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Viramontes 93 P.3d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(sentence illegal if in violation of statutory mandates); , (sentence illegal if not in compliance with mandatory provisions of statute); , (sentence unlawful if not within statutory provisions).
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 8 The State, , claims that the defendant has the burden of establishing that his absence was involuntary.
State v. Reed 992 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Reed 992 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Sainz 924 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Sainz 924 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Sanderson 898 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Sanderson 898 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 901 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 901 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Holguin 870 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Holguin 870 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(sentence unlawful if not within statutory provisions); see also AR.S.
State v. House 821 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. House 821 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Glasscock 812 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Glasscock 812 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Vaughn 786 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Vaughn 786 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Falco 783 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Falco 783 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Brooks 777 P.2d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Brooks 777 P.2d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
(where the defendant makes a fraudulent misrepresentation to the court, the sentence may be declared void) , (rule that sentence may not be changed after lawful imposition is not altered by fact that trial court acted under a misapprehension not engendered by defendant).
State v. Lee 772 P.2d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Lee 772 P.2d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Although the sentence imposed was illegal, , could the court modify its error in the manner described here?