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. Frey, 686 P.2d 1291.

34 citing documents.

  • Joel Carson v. Hon. gentry/state Ariz. 2025
  • Joel Carson v. Hon. gentry/state Ariz. 2025
    (“The courts have no power to interfere with the discretion of the prosecutor unless he is acting illegally or in excess of his powers.” (quoting Murphy, 113 Ariz. at 418)); see also J.V.
  • State v. Zanes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Zanes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Rider v. Garcia 312 P.3d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Rider v. Garcia 312 P.3d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Quintana 987 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Quintana 987 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Bazzanella v. Tucson City Court 988 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • Bazzanella v. Tucson City Court 988 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    As Division One of this court noted, however, the state has broad discretion in determining what charges, if any, are to be filed and a defendant’s right to a jury trial is triggered by "the possible maximum penalty authorized by the legislature for the crime charged by the pros *375 ecutor.” , (emphasis added); see also Amancio v. Forster, 292 Ariz. Adv.
  • Amancio v. Forster 993 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Amancio v. Forster 993 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    triggers the right to a jury trial.” , (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
  • State v. Pope 961 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Pope 961 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    ¶ 6 , in which we held that a judge cannot deprive a defendant of the right to a jury trial by deciding, before trial, to designate a class 6 open end offense a misdemeanor.
  • In Re Isaac G. 944 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • In Re Isaac G. 944 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    In support of his argument, , and In Re Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-122733
  • State v. Weinstein 898 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Weinstein 898 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Ramsey 831 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Ramsey 831 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    Dykes, 163 Ariz. at 583 , 789 P.2d at 1084
  • Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action 838 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Walker 838 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action 838 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    (trial judge cannot usurp the prosecutor's discretion by reducing a criminal charge before trial); , (trial judge without authority to direct prosecutor to place evidence of aggravating circumstances in evidence).
  • State v. Walker 838 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    (trial judge cannot usurp the prosecutor’s discretion by reducing a criminal charge before trial); , (trial judge without authority to direct prosecutor to place evidence of aggravating circumstances in evidence).
  • State v. Dykes 789 P.2d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Dykes 789 P.2d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    Larson, 159 Ariz. at 16 , 764 P.2d at 751
  • State v. Prentiss 786 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Prentiss 786 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1989
    Furthermore, the executive branch has the power to decide what criminal charges to file, , the power to enhance punishment, , and the power to decide what evidence of aggravating circumstances to offer at sentencing
  • State v. Steiger 781 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Steiger 781 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Larson 764 P.2d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Larson 764 P.2d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988