Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bayliss, 704 P.2d 1363.

28 citing documents.

State v. Swift Hawk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Swift Hawk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Warner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Warner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Meza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Meza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
The pretrial notice to the defendant, however, must be adequate to inform him “of the charge of an allegation of prior convictions, so as not to be misled, surprised or deceived in any way by the allegations.”
State v. Sanders Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Sanders Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
The pretrial notice to the defendant, however, must be adequate to inform him “of the charge of an allegation of prior convictions, so as not to be misled, surprised or deceived in any way by the allegations.”
State v. Agyepong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Agyepong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
.” ¶ 16 (App. 2001) () (addressing whether a defendant had sufficient notice of State’s intent to designate prior felony convictions as dangerous under A.R.S.
State v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Adequate notice of an allegation of a previous conviction requires the defendant not be “misled, surprised or deceived in any way by the allegations.”
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-38, ¶¶ 15-18 (App. 2001) ().
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
As this court has concluded, notice of allegations of dangerousness is sufficient when the defendant is not “‘misled, surprised, or deceived in any way by the allegations.’”
State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
such that the defendant is not „misled, surprised or deceived in any way by the allegations‟ of prior convictions.” Benak, 18 P.3d at 131
State of Arizona v. Mark Anthony Cons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Cons 94 P.3d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Mark Anthony Cons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
P.2d 320 (1985) (constitutional principles of due process entitle defendant to notice of range of potential sentence before trial); Benak, 18 P.3d at 13 1, (“Notice .
State v. Cons 94 P.3d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(constitutional principles of due process entitle defendant to notice of range of potential sentence before trial); Benak, , 18 P.3d at 131 , , (“Notice ...
State v. Benak 18 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Benak 18 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Whitney 768 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1989
State v. Whitney 768 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1989
State v. Jobe 757 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Jobe 757 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988