Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Garcia, 943 P.2d 870.

28 citing documents.

State v. Aulbach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Aulbach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
§ 13-105(22)(d) (designating “[a]ny felony conviction that is a third or more prior felony conviction” as a “[h]istorical prior felony conviction”); (“[O]nce a person has been convicted of three felony offenses, the third in time can be used to enhance a later sentence, regardless of passage of time.”).
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Hasson 177 P.3d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Hasson 177 P.3d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
604 (App.2004)(interpreting statute to give it a fair and sensible meaning, rather than a construction that frustrates legislative intent); ¶ 11 , (‘We apply practical, common sense constructions rather than hypertechnical ones that would tend to frustrate legislative intent when we interpret criminal statutes.”); , (in construing statutes, courts consider consequences and effects of decisions).
State v. Thomas 175 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Thomas 175 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
any doubt should be resolved in favor of the defendant.” , (internal quotations and citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Daniel James Alexander Barnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Daniel James Alexander Barnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Arbolida 78 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Arbolida 78 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Story 75 P.3d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Story 75 P.3d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
¶ 3 , (holding that “the term ‘convicted’ throughout § 13-901.01 refers to a conviction on the instant offense for which an offender faces sentencing”), , (holding that for purposes of § 13-604(U)(1)(d), prior felony convictions are counted in chronological order), to bolster the conclusion of the trial court.
State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Decenzo 18 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Decenzo 18 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
a case decided by Division One of this court.
State v. Derello 18 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Derello 18 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
McDonald v. Thomas 12 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
McDonald v. Thomas 12 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 16 , (in construing statutes, courts apply practical, common-sense construction); , (in construing statutes, courts consider consequences and effects of decisions).
State v. Wood 8 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Wood 8 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Malvern 962 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Malvern 962 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
and by considering factors such as the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.’”