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. Stevens, 844 P.2d 661.

78 citing documents.

  • State v. Mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • 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
    The court ordered this sentence to be consecutive to the other sentences imposed on this date, as the minute entry otherwise reflects, but it is “manifestly impossible for consecutive sentences to both begin on the same date.”
  • State v. Velasco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Velasco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Cabrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Cabrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    -96, -63 (App. 1 Cabrera stipulated at trial that he was a prohibited possessor whose civil rights had not been restored at the time of the incident.
  • State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Brain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Brain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    § 13-712.B, entitling a defendant to “all time actually spent in custody pursuant to an offense until the prisoner is sentenced to imprisonment” and correcting such an error.); (modifying sentence to grant defendant correct credit for pre-sentence incarceration).
  • State of Arizona v. Brandon Albert Seay 302 P.3d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Brandon Albert Seay 302 P.3d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    P. 32.9(f) (appellate court “may issue such orders and grant such relief as it deems necessary and proper”); (correcting presentence incarceration credit without remand to trial court).
  • State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    “Upon finding a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of sentence and a minute entry, a reviewing court must try to ascertain the trial court’s intent by reference to the record.”
  • State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    (concluding such defendants retained right to direct appeal because they had not knowingly and intelligently waived that right by pleading guilty); see also Ariz. R.Crim.
  • State v. Boozer 212 P.3d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Boozer 212 P.3d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    P. 31.17(b); -496 , -663 (App.1992) (correcting a miscalculation in credit by modifying the sentence without remanding to the trial court).
  • State v. Simpson 173 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Simpson 173 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    (holding that this court must correct an inadvertent error in a sentencing minute entry)
  • State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    Ann. (“A.R.S.”) § 13-4033(1) (1989); , (1992 amend-merits to jurisdictional statute inapplicable to plea agreements entered before effective date of amendments); cf. A.R.S.
  • State v. Smith 904 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Smith 904 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    this court assumed without deciding that, like all other constitutional rights, the right to appeal could be waived.
  • State v. Wilson 851 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Wilson 851 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    Accordingly, , this court assumed, without deciding, that the right of appeal could be waived.