Cited by

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

59 citing documents.

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
State v. Ward 26 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Ward 26 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Section 13-708 does “ ‘not constrict to any degree the trial court’s discretion to impose [consecutive] sentences for the defendant’s crimes.’” Garza, 192 Ariz. at 174-75, ¶ 12 , 962 P.2d at 901 -02 ( , ).
State v. Anderson 16 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Anderson 16 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Wagner 976 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Wagner 976 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(stating that it is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to arbitrarily or capriciously impose sentence).
State v. Garza 962 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1998
State v. Garza 962 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1998
5 Finally, , the court of appeals stated that § 13-708 “provides a presumption that sentences will run consecutively.” Mem.