Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Suarez, 670 P.2d 1192.

32 citing documents.

State v. Khorrami Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Khorrami Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(“A scheme to defraud thus implies a plan, and numerous acts may be committed in furtherance of that plan.”).
State v. MacIas 469 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. MacIas 469 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
at 361–62 (citation was to the wrong statute but no showing of prejudice); (indictment failed to cite an enhancement section but “no resulting prejudice or surprise from the omission”); (the error was a “technical defect .
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(State can charge separate fraudulent acts pursuant to single scheme as a single count of fraudulent schemes and artifices); State v. Mullet, 1 CA-CR 17-0179, 2018 WL 2976266, at *4, ¶ 15 (App. June 14, 2018) (mem.
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“A scheme or artifice is some plan, device, or trick [used] to perpetrate a fraud,” ¶ 12 (App. 2003) (), and implies “numerous acts may be committed,”
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Mullet notes that the scheme to defraud is the criminal conduct under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 13-2310, not the acts committed in furtherance of the scheme.
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
A scheme to defraud thus implies a plan, and numerous acts may be committed in furtherance of that plan.” (internal citations omitted).
State v. Yegan 221 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Yegan 221 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(focusing analysis on whether any element of criminal fraud occurred in Arizona).
State v. Bennett 146 P.3d 63 Ariz. 2006
State v. Bennett 146 P.3d 63 Ariz. 2006
mining whether counsel was reasonably effective is ‘an objective’ standard which we feel can best be developed by someone other than the person responsible for the conduct.” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984)); see also State v. Suarez, 137 Ariz. 368, 380, (noting that “it is improper for appellate counsel to argue his own ineffectiveness at trial because, as a matter of policy, it is difficult for counsel to objectively review his own performance and zealously argue any
State v. Cook 916 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Cook 916 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
The Arizona statute lacks the disjunctive “or” between “scheme or artifice to defraud” and “obtaining money or property,” and contains the specific requirement that the fraudulent conduct be done “knowingly.” The Arizona statute requires the state to prove that a defendant obtained a benefit, -74 , -98 (App.1983).
State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
State v. Willoughby 892 P.2d 1319 Ariz. 1995
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
(unnecessary statutory reference in indictment was properly deleted as surplus-age).
State v. Marlow 786 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1989
State v. Marlow 786 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1989
State v. Jerdee 743 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Jerdee 743 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
the *417 defendant was charged with fraudulent scheme and artifice in a plan to defraud Lake Havasu City.
State v. Schneider 715 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Schneider 715 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
we noted that “a scheme to defraud thus implies a plan, and numerous acts may be committed in furtherance of that plan.” In this case, it is clear that appellant had a plan to solicit investments from numerous people, and used the money garnered from each to pay off other investo
State v. Winter 706 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Winter 706 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Lukezic 691 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1984
State v. Lukezic 691 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1984