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. LeMaster, 669 P.2d 592.

53 citing documents.

  • State v. Puga 564 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Puga 564 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    t’s character or background or to the nature or circumstances of the crime.” Puga argues Section 13-701(D)(27) relates only to “the crime for which the court is imposing sentence.” But “[t]he trial court should consider not only the offenses charged, but also the past conduct and moral character of the defendant so that the punishment may fit both the offense and the offender.”
  • State v. Tingue Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Tingue Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 11 (2013); (“[D]ouble punishment principles do not preclude the trial court from using the prior conviction to impose an enhanced sentence .
  • State v. Osgood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Osgood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    First, because we apply the law prevailing at the time of our decision, (articulating general rule that “when there is a change of law by judicial decision between the time of trial and the time of appeal the appellate court will apply the law prevailing at the time of the appellate disposition”).
  • State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (“The trial court may consider as [an] aggravating circumstance[ ] the defendant’s prior record.”); (“Double jeopardy or double punishment principles do not preclude the trial court from using the prior conviction to impose an enhanced sentence .
  • State v. Brennan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Brennan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    -163 (App. 1983) (holding the trial court did not err in inferring defendant’s absence at trial was voluntary when the defendant was advised of the terms and conditions of his release, was informed trial would proceed if he failed to appear, was advised of the trial date, and had not informed his counsel on his wh
  • State v. Bonfiglio 266 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State v. Bonfiglio 266 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    (“double punishment principles do not preclude the trial court from using the prior conviction to impose an enhanced sentence ...
  • State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    See State v. LeMaster, 137 Ariz. 159, 166, (“Double jeopardy or double punishment principles do not preclude the trial court from using the prior conviction to impose an enhanced 15 sentence under the recidivist statute, A.R.S.
  • State v. Forte 214 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Forte 214 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    Because the record demonstrates neither extraordinary circumstances necessitating a deviation from the requirements of Rule 26.9, , supp. op., nor the defendant’s personal waiver of the right to physical presence at sentencing, we conclude the trial court sentenced Forte in violation of the requirements of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and the United States Constitution.
  • 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
    984) (threatened use of weapon against police officers both element of offense and aggravating factor under § 13-702(C)(2)); 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
  • State v. Greer 948 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Greer 948 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    1058 (1919), , 199 P. 132, 136 (1921); -65 , -98 (App.1983); State v. Taylor, 25 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Clough 829 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Clough 829 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Ritacca 819 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Ritacca 819 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
    : Double jeopardy or double punishment principles do not preclude the trial court from using the prior conviction to impose an enhanced sentence under the recidivist statute, A.R.S.
  • State v. Ault 759 P.2d 1320 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Ault 759 P.2d 1320 Ariz. 1988
    is subject to the provisions of this section.” The court of appeals has held that “the question as to whether an out-of-state conviction would constitute a felony or a misdemeanor in Arizona is a question of law, which must be decided by the trial court.” , ( , ).
  • State v. Horning 761 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Horning 761 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    Mr. Homing is entitled to have his appeal decided in accordance with “the law prevailing at the time of the appellate disposition.” , Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct.
  • State v. Adams 750 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Adams 750 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    decided after Nunez , held that a new rule, relating to sentencing in absentia, applied to cases pending on appeal when the new rule was announced.
  • State v. Crowder 747 P.2d 1176 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Crowder 747 P.2d 1176 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Dampier 756 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Dampier 756 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    Supreme Court held Phillips applicable “[bjecause Crowder’s appeal was pending on [the date that Phillips was issued].” Crowder , at 479, 747 P.2d at 1178
  • State v. Hoover 728 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Hoover 728 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    (defendant’s failure to appear for trial manifested a bad attitude).
  • State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Stotts 695 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Stotts 695 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1985
    es for self-authentication of a public document not under seal when the public document bears the signature “in his official capacity of an officer or employee” of any state “if a public officer having a seal and having official duties [in the state] of the officer or employee certifies under seal that the signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine.”
  • State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Torrez 687 P.2d 1292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Torrez 687 P.2d 1292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • 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. Swainston 676 P.2d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Swainston 676 P.2d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984