Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fillmore, 927 P.2d 1303.

58 citing documents.

State v. Vanheemskerck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Vanheemskerck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Schaeffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Schaeffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“[A] reviewing court may find [an] abuse of discretion when the sentencing decision is arbitrary or capricious, or when the court fails to conduct an adequate investigation into the facts relevant to sentencing.”
State v. Dudley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Dudley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986) (stating that a defendant must "prove that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious" to show ineffective assistance of counsel); (noting that counsel may fall below professional norms by failing to file a motion to suppress if the evidence was "clearly of questionable validity").
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Blunt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Blunt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Quinonez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Quinonez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
"As a general rule, 'sentencing is the responsibility of the trial judge and, absent an abuse of discretion, the sentence will not be altered.'" ().
Fiona T. v. Dcs, S.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Fiona T. v. Dcs, S.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Chayrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Chayrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶8 Chayrez argues that the theft of the truck, trailer, and the motorcycles in the trailer constituted one count of theft.
State v. Hoskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hoskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
An abuse of discretion occurs when the “sentencing decision is arbitrary or capricious, or when the court fails to conduct an adequate investigation into the facts relevant to sentencing.” ¶ 6 (App. 2001) ().
State v. Garcia Del Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Garcia Del Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
neglects to move to suppress evidence obtained through a questionably legal search.”
Hanson v. Bindl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Hanson v. Bindl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. McEvoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. McEvoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In Re Christian S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In Re Christian S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
A court abuses its discretion “when the [disposition] decision is arbitrary or capricious, or when the court fails to conduct an adequate investigation into the facts relevant to [disposition].” ().
In Re Tien F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In Re Tien F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
A court abuses its discretion “when the [disposition] decision is arbitrary or capricious, or when the court fails to conduct an adequate investigation into the facts relevant to [disposition].” ().
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
" State v. Fillmore , , 184, , 1313 (App. 1996), quoting State v. Mincey , , 445, , 1200 (1984).
State v. Carnochan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Carnochan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(stating that while this Court may modify a sentence, its 4 STATE v. CARNOCHAN Decision of the Court discretion to do so should be exercised with great caution).
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
A trial court abuses its discretion “when the sentencing decision is arbitrary or capricious, or when the court fails to conduct an adequate investigation into the facts relevant to sentencing.”
State v. Villela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Villela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
7 STATE v. VILLELA Decision of the Court (citation omitted), even if we have the statutory authority, we decline to exercise that authority to reduce the aggregate sentence.
State v. Osman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Osman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Valero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Valero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. George Anthony Dominguez Jr. 338 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. George Anthony Dominguez Jr. 338 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶11 Generally, absent a compelling tactical reason, counsel renders deficient performance by failing to move “to suppress evidence obtained through a questionably legal search.”
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
33 ¶87 That section does not require that sentences run consecutively and does “‘not constrict to any degree the trial court’s discretion to impose [concurrent] sentences for the defendant’s crimes.’” Garza, 192 Ariz. at 174 ¶ 12, 962 P.2d at 901 ( ).
State v. Campoy 207 P.3d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Campoy 207 P.3d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
signed dui'ing plea negotiations”); , 178 n. 3, , 1307 n. 3 (App.1996) (finding “Rule 410 protects any plea *545 offers that would also be protected by Rule 17.4(f)”).
State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 31 An appellate court must exercise its authority under this statutory provision with great caution, , and a trial court’s sentence within statutory limits ordinarily will be upheld absent an abuse of its discretion, Long, 207 Ariz. at 147 ¶ 37, 83 P.3d at 625 , although in Davis , the court converted Davis’ crimes from dangerous crimes against children to non-dangerous offenses w