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. Lammie, 793 P.2d 134.

38 citing documents.

  • Hv Canal v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Hv Canal v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    (“While it is true that when the legislature amends statutory language, it is presumed that it intends to make a change in existing law, a statutory amendment ought not to be interpreted so broadly as to destroy the entire objective of the statutory scheme.”).
  • State of Arizona v. Lynn Lavern Burbey 381 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Lynn Lavern Burbey 381 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    Safety, 190 Ariz. at 495, 949 P.2d at 988 (sex offender registration is a means of protecting communities); -83, -40 (App. 1990) (sex offender registration is investigative tool for law enforcement), P.3d 641 (2008).
  • State v. Henry 228 P.3d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. Henry 228 P.3d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    Laws, ch. 201, § 242; , ¶¶ 15-17
  • State v. Peek 195 P.3d 641 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Peek 195 P.3d 641 Ariz. 2008
    P.2d 134 (App. 1990), P.2d 936 (App. 1987), addressed whether sex offender registration could be required for those convicted of attempted sexual assault.
  • Fushek v. State 183 P.3d 536 Ariz. 2008
  • Fushek v. State 183 P.3d 536 Ariz. 2008
  • David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • In Re Leopoldo L. 99 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • In Re Leopoldo L. 99 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    at 326, 942 P.2d at 485; -81 , -38 (App.1990) (holding sex offender registration provision applied to persons convicted of attempted as well as completed sexual offenses even though provision made no reference to attempted offenses).
  • Knight Transportation, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 55 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Knight Transportation, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 55 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    “[A] court will not treat as amendatory an act which does not purport to be amendato-ry.”
  • State v. Helmer 53 P.3d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Helmer 53 P.3d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Fisher v. Kaufman 38 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Fisher v. Kaufman 38 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    (“lifetime registration”); , (misadvice for lawyer to tell client that registration could be terminated after a year); , (§ 13-3821 “lifetime registration” requirement does not violate the Eighth Amendment).
  • Stubblefield v. Trombino 4 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Stubblefield v. Trombino 4 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    ¶ 5 , we held that the statute requiring convicted sex offenders to register as such also applies to persons convicted of attempted sex offenses, even though the registration statute did not specifically refer to attempted offenses.
  • State v. Cornish 968 P.2d 606 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Cornish 968 P.2d 606 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    ¶ 12 In contrast, , this court held that a statute requiring convicted sex offenders to register also applied to defendants convicted of attempted sexual offenses.
  • State v. Superior Court of State 945 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Superior Court of State 945 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    at 45-46 , 846 P.2d at 858-59 , and, indeed, “an ‘attempt’ is generally recognized as being part of the completed offense.”
  • In Re Sean M. 942 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • In Re Sean M. 942 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Kadera v. Superior Court 931 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Kadera v. Superior Court 931 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Noble 829 P.2d 1217 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Noble 829 P.2d 1217 Ariz. 1992
    (“Registration for lifetime places a defendant on notice that when subsequent sexual crimes are committed in the area where he lives, he will be subject to investigation.
  • State v. Calderon 827 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Calderon 827 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • 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
    We have, however, previously observed that registration is a “proper tool to be given to police officers for use in investigating criminal offenses.” -83 , -40 (App.1990).