Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Kerekes, 673 P.2d 979.

26 citing documents.

State v. Torrance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Torrance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
we remand the matter for resentencing in a manner consistent with this decision, emphasizing that nothing precludes the court from 9 STATE v. TORRANCE Decision of the Court imposing the same sentence after “conscientiously balancing the factors [the court] may properly consider.”
State v. De Groote Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. De Groote Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Criminal defendants enjoy the right to remain silent through the presentence investigation and can “not be penalized for invoking that right.” ¶ 14 (App. 2011) (court may not consider a defendant’s lack of remorse or failure to admit guilt during sentencing).
State v. Dustin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Dustin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Francois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Francois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
racy of the State’s evidence.”); –83 (App. 1981) (no misconduct where prosecutor commented at trial about defendant’s failure to present evidence on how a stolen speaker cover got into his car trunk when the prosecutor made those statements as a rebuttal to the defendant’s argument that the speaker cover had been found and not stolen); (because purported misconduct occurred during the State’s rebuttal 11 STATE v. FRANCOIS Decision of the Court argument, this court views the challenged statement
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“Not every reference to the fact that testimony has been uncontroverted necessarily focuses on the appellant’s exercise of his right not to testify.”).
State v. Dagenais Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dagenais Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Our conclusion does not preclude the reimposition of [the same] sentences if the trial judge, in conscientiously balancing the factors [she] may properly consider, concludes that such sentences are indicated.” ¶ 30, (Lankford, J., dissenting in part) (“We should instead remand to allow the trial court to impose the sentence that it determines to be justified by the properly considered sentencing facts.
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Comeau v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 993 P.2d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Comeau v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 993 P.2d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(citing Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct.
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Holder 745 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Holder 745 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
2347 , 85 L.Ed.2d 864 (1985)
State v. Grooms 702 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Grooms 702 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Matter of Appeal in Pima County, Juv. Action 679 P.2d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Matter of Appeal in Pima County, Juv. Action 679 P.2d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976)