Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Millanes, 885 P.2d 106.

47 citing documents.

State v. Sanchez-Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Sanchez-Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Jones v. Thomas, 491 U.S. 376, 380-81 (1989)
State v. Maser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Maser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 62 n.2 (1975) (guilty plea does not waive double jeopardy violation claim “that the State may not convict petitioner no matter how validly his factual guilt is established”); (“A double jeopardy claim is inherently different than the usual claim of error in that double jeopardy is independent of the issue of guilt.”).
State v. Marques Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Marques Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“[W]aiver of the prohibition against double jeopardy must be express rather than implied.” (citation omitted).
State v. Barrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Barrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“[T]he prohibition against double jeopardy is a fundamental right that is not waived by the failure to raise it in the trial court.” ¶ 9 (App. 2017).
State v. Swindle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Swindle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“waiver of the prohibition against double jeopardy must be express rather than implied.”).
State v. Dickinson 393 P.3d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Dickinson 393 P.3d 461 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Although Dickinson did not move to dismiss the charges on double jeopardy grounds below, “the prohibition against double jeopardy is a fundamental right that is not waived by the failure to raise it in the trial court.”
State v. Gutierrez 381 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gutierrez 381 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Angel Pete Ruiz 372 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Angel Pete Ruiz 372 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
¶13 Three Arizona cases provide guidance for this fact- intensive inquiry: P.2d 1366 (App. 1989), P.2d 106 (App. 1994), P.3d 43 (App. 2009).
State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
n.2, ¶ 7 (App. 2002) ().
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Although Ochoa did not raise this issue below, the “prohibition against double jeopardy is a fundamental right that is not waived by the failure to raise it.”
State of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(“Although we do not search the record for fundamental error, we will not ignore it when we find it.”); (“prohibition against double jeopardy is a fundamental right that is not waived by the failure to raise it”).
State v. Williams 302 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State of Arizona v. Danny Louis Musgrove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Danny Louis Musgrove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
In contrast, -23, -11 (App. 1994), we held that a trial court’s reversal of a judgment of acquittal had placed the defendant in double jeopardy because the transcript and the court’s minute entry left no question that an acquittal had 6 been granted.
State of Arizona v. Alvaro Felix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Alvaro Felix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
See, ¶¶ 4, 6-7, (treating appeal raising double jeopardy claim as special action in response to state’s assertion that we lacked jurisdiction to review denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss charges on appeal); (“[T]he purpose for the general rule of waiver arising from the failure to raise the issue in the trial court has no application to a claim of double jeopardy.”).
State of Arizona v. Andrew James Raymond Burdick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Andrew James Raymond Burdick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Shipman Sweeney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Shipman Sweeney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Wilson 82 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Wilson 82 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
] a retrial following an acquittal even though ‘the acquittal was based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation.’ ” , quoting Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 503 , 98 S.Ct.
State v. Montoya 65 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Montoya 65 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(“We perceive no judicial or public policy reason for finding a waiver when a double jeopardy claim is raised for the first time on appeal”).
State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(prohibition against double jeopardy is “fundamental right that is not waived by the failure to raise it in the trial court”).
State v. Miranda 10 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Miranda 10 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(“The prohibition against double jeopardy is a fundamental right that is not waived by the failure to raise it in the trial court.”).
State v. Chabolla-Hinojosa 965 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Chabolla-Hinojosa 965 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶ 9 Freedom from double jeopardy is “fundamental to the American scheme of justice” and “must be enforced whenever a violation is determined to exist.” , (citing Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 796 , 89 S.Ct.
State v. Geotis 930 P.2d 1324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Geotis 930 P.2d 1324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Webb 925 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Webb 925 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
824 , 54 L.Ed.2d 717 (1978)