Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ochoa, 943 P.2d 814.
- State v. Merrill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- State v. Merrill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- State v. Brock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
State v. Brock
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Nonetheless, a statute is unconstitutionally overbroad only if “its deterrent effect on legitimate expression [is] not only real, but substantial as well.” (internal quotation omitted).
- State v. Meeds 421 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- State v. Meeds 421 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- State v. Dean 243 P.3d 1029 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
- State v. Dean 243 P.3d 1029 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
- Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
- Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
- State v. Brown 85 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
- State of Arizona v. Lawrence Brown, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
-
State v. Brown
85 P.3d 109
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
In reviewing those challenges to the statute, we are guided by “a strong presumption that it is constitutional.”
-
State of Arizona v. Lawrence Brown, Jr.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
In reviewing those challenges to the statute, we are guided by “a strong presumption that it is constitutional.”
- 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
section 13-116 was not designed to cover sentence enhancement.”
- In Re Kyle M. 27 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
-
In Re Kyle M.
27 P.3d 804
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
(“[W]e have discretionary authority to consider an argument for the first time on appeal when a defendant asserts that a statute is void.”).
- 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. Valle 996 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
- State v. Valle 996 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
- State v. Lefevre 972 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Lefevre 972 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Torres-Mercado 955 P.2d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-
State v. Torres-Mercado
955 P.2d 35
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-58 , -18 (App.1997), we held that A.R.S.