Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bowles, 841 P.2d 209.

54 citing documents.

State v. Fullen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Fullen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Stevens, 173 Ariz. 2 As our supreme court has explained, the term “prosecutorial misconduct” broadly encompasses any conduct that violates a defendant’s constitutional rights and “sweeps in prosecutorial conduct ranging from inadvertent error or innocent mistake to intentional miscondu
State v. Estell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Estell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(holding that the trial court intended to impose a consecutive sentence where, despite describing the sentence as “concurrent” during its oral pronouncement, the court “clearly stated at both the change of plea hearing and the sentencing hearing that the sentence was to be consecutive per the plea agreemen
Charlson v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Charlson v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Fender Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Fender Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“Where there is a discrepancy between the oral sentence and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement of sentence controls.” -05 (App. 1983); (finding remand for clarification of sentence is appropriate where discrepancy “cannot be resolved by reference to the record”).
Kempton v. Chappell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Kempton v. Chappell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Servs., Inc., ¶ 21 (App. 1999) (“Because the alleged inconsistency is easily resolved by reference to the record, we do not find any defect in the judgment.”) ().
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
P. 26.16; (indicating that the court can order the correction of the record so that it clearly identifies the intended sentence); (noting that if a record indicates the minute entry contains a clerical error, remand is unnecessary).
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Bragna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bragna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Sales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Sales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(providing that when the oral pronouncement of a sentence and the minute entry differ, a remand is unnecessary if the record indicates that the minute entry contains a clerical error).
State v. Kegler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kegler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(when an appellate court can determine the superior court's intent from the record, remand for clarification is unnecessary).
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“[W]hen there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the minute entry that cannot be resolved by reference to the record, a remand for clarification of sentence is appropriate.”).
State v. Marshall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Marshall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(when an appellate court can determine the superior court's intent from the record, remand for clarification is unnecessary).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(when an appellate court can determine the superior court's intent from the record, remand for clarification is unnecessary).
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Benally Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Benally Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
When the trial court makes an “inadvertent error in the sentencing minute entry[,] [it] must be corrected.” (holding that “when there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the minute entry,” it may be resolved by referring to the record).
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
–62, ¶¶11-19, -78 (2010) (holding that defendant failed to meet his burden to establish that only eleven jurors deliberated, “[w]hen the uncorrected record is considered as a whole”); (holding that because the remaining record was clear, it was not necessary to remand for resentencing to resolve a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of sentence and minute entry).
State v. Sutton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sutton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Francisco Antonio Lopez 279 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Francisco Antonio Lopez 279 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. PROVENZINO 212 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. PROVENZINO 212 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 25 “[W]hen there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the minute entry that cannot be resolved by reference to the record, a remand for clarification of sentence is appropriate.” , (emphasis in original).
State v. Viramontes 27 P.3d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Viramontes 27 P.3d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(remand appropriate to clarify sentencing discrepancy).
Meineke v. GAB Business Services, Inc. 991 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Meineke v. GAB Business Services, Inc. 991 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(concluding that remand was unnecessary because inconsistency in oral pronouncement of sentence and minute entry was clarified by reference to record).
State v. Doss 966 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Doss 966 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(appellate court can look to statements by the court in determining court’s intent).
State v. Contreras 885 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Contreras 885 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994