Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Yellowmexican, 688 P.2d 1097.

30 citing documents.

State v. Hines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Those provisions prohibit the legislature from enacting a law that “imposes a punishment for an act which was not punishable at the time it was committed; or imposes additional punishment to that then prescribed.” -07 (App. 1984) (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 28 (1981)); see U.S. Const., art. 1, §§ 9, 10; Ariz. Const., art. 2, § 25.
State of Arizona v. Craig Michael Stefanovich 302 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Craig Michael Stefanovich 302 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
The court, P.2d 1097 (App. 1984), adopted and approved by P.2d 983 (1984), concluded that the application of the eighty-four month timeframe to Stefanovich’s previous DUI offenses did not implicate ex post facto concerns and that issues about the statute’s retroactivity were therefore “irrelevant.” The
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
at ¶¶ 13, 15, 16, ; , (stiffer penalty for third offense of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, committed after change in law creating increased penalty for third offense, did not violate ex post facto prohibition because, but for third offense, there would be no punishment beyond that impose
In Re Shane B. 7 P.3d 94 Ariz. 2000
In Re Shane B. 7 P.3d 94 Ariz. 2000
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Safety, 190 Ariz. *308 at 494, 949 P.2d at 987 ; , adopted and approved
In re Jerry B. 973 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
In re Jerry B. 973 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
960, 965 , 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981); , (a statute is retroactive if it applies “to events occurring before its enactment” and “disadvantagefs] the offender”), adopted and approved
State v. Olvera 952 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Olvera 952 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
2446, 2451 , 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987); , adopted and approved
State v. Noble 829 P.2d 1217 Ariz. 1992
State v. Noble 829 P.2d 1217 Ariz. 1992
3 -07 , -99 (Ct.App.1984), adopted and approved
State v. Campa 814 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1991
State v. Campa 814 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1991
In doing so, he relies heavily on State v. Yellowmexican, in which the court of appeals referred to § 28-692.01(F) as an enhancement statute “also commonly referred to as a recidivist statute,” and also referred to § 13-604 as the “general recidivist statute of Arizona’s new criminal code.” , opinion adopted and approved
State v. Noble 808 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Noble 808 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. McCuin 808 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. McCuin 808 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Driggs 745 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Driggs 745 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Hinson v. Coulter 723 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1986
Hinson v. Coulter 723 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1986
(approved , ), is instructive on this issue.
State v. Yellowmexican 688 P.2d 983 Ariz. 1984
State v. Yellowmexican 688 P.2d 983 Ariz. 1984
GORDON, Vice Chief Justice: We granted review of the opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division I, , pursuant to Ariz. Const, art. 6, § 5(E) and Ariz.R.Crim.P.