Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lemming, 937 P.2d 381.

30 citing documents.

State v. Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Rather, “a defendant must show that a defense witness became unavailable during the delay, that such witness would have testified on the defendant’s behalf, the substance of the testimony, and that such testimony is not available through substitute sources.” (holding failure to show deceased witness’s testimony was unavailable from another source was not enough to show prejudice).
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Waits Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Waits Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Leary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Leary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Once the State re-indicted Leary, the Rule 8 time limits began “anew.” (citation omitted).
State v. Goold Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Goold Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article 6, Section 9; and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12–120.21(A)(1), 13–4031, and 13– 4032(1).3 ANALYSIS ¶4 We review the trial court’s order “granting a motion to dismiss criminal charges for an abuse of discretion or for the application of an incorrect legal interpretation.”
In Re Edgar D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In Re Edgar D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“We review an order granting a motion to dismiss criminal charges for an abuse of discretion or for the application of an incorrect legal interpretation.” ¶ 7, ( ).
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State v. Penney 270 P.3d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Penney 270 P.3d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Brewer v. Rees 265 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Brewer v. Rees 265 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
“[I]f charges against a criminal defendant *257 are initially dismissed and later refiled by the state, the 150-day limit of Rule 8.2(a) ‘begins anew.’ ” , (citation omitted).
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶ 14 “We review an order granting a motion to dismiss criminal charges for an abuse of discretion or for the application of an incorrect legal interpretation.” , see also Taylor, , 148 P.3d at 87 .
State v. Galvez 150 P.3d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Galvez 150 P.3d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
‘We review an order granting a motion to dismiss *157 criminal charges for an abuse of discretion or for the application of an incorrect legal interpretation.”
State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
In re Arnulfo G. 71 P.3d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In re Arnulfo G. 71 P.3d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
1 “We review an order granting a motion to dismiss criminal charges for an abuse of discretion or for the application of an incorrect legal interpretation.”
State v. Sanchez 967 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Sanchez 967 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Discussion ¶ 4 “We review an order granting a motion to dismiss criminal charges for an abuse of discretion or for the application of an incorrect legal interpretation.”
Hennessey v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hennessey v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997