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. Parker, 524 P.2d 506.

30 citing documents.

  • State v. Whiteside Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. Whiteside Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    ¶18 To determine the length of a defendant’s potential sentence, we consider “the possible cumulative sentences in each case and not just the possible sentence for each count or charge.” (citation modified); (explaining the Arizona Constitution requires a twelve-person jury when “the total possible authorized sentence in a criminal case” is 30 years or greater) (emphasis added).
  • State v. Palmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Palmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    – 15 (1974) (“The defendant, even though representing himself, cannot complain of matters that crept into the case through his own misconduct.”).
  • State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Dixon 622 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • State v. Dixon 622 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • State v. Hung Manh Nguyen 93 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Hung Manh Nguyen 93 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    In applying the constitutional provision for a twelve-person jury, this court has previously held that “[t]he Constitution is clearly addressed to the total possible authorized sentence in a criminal case____” , (emphasis added); see A.R.S.
  • State v. Thorne 971 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Thorne 971 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    (amendment of theft charge to prevent increasing the maximum potential sentence after trial began, but prior to submission to the jury, does not require reversal) (App.1983)
  • State v. Smith 687 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Smith 687 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Henley 687 P.2d 1220 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Henley 687 P.2d 1220 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Thompson 677 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Thompson 677 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Maldonado 675 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Maldonado 675 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Prince 689 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Prince 689 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Miguel 611 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Miguel 611 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Buffum 610 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Buffum 610 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1980
    The Constitution is clearly addressed to the total possible authorized sentence in a criminal case, here twenty-nine years, and not to the possible sentence on each count which a defendant faces.”
  • State v. Binford 584 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Binford 584 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Filipov 576 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Filipov 576 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977