Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lefevre, 972 P.2d 1021.

34 citing documents.

State v. Bouhdida 560 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Bouhdida 560 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 15 (App. 1998) (explaining the failure to raise a claim in the superior court generally “waives appellate review of that claim, even if the alleged error is of constitutional dimension”).
State v. Mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“However, when, as here, a defendant claims that a statute is unconstitutionally vague, we may consider that claim for the first time on appeal.” ¶ 15 (App. 1998).
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Epsy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Epsy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 5 n.2 (App. 2016) (declining to consider an argument that the appellant “abandoned” in his reply brief); ¶ 15 (App. 1998) (“Normally, failure to raise a claim at trial waives appellate review of that claim, even if the alleged error is of constitutional dimension.”).
State v. Sibley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Sibley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Crystal F. v. Dcs, L.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Crystal F. v. Dcs, L.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mortemore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mortemore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 15 (App. 1998) (“Normally, failure to raise a claim at trial waives appellate review of that claim, even if the alleged error is of constitutional dimension.”).
State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz 342 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz 342 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
6 Theft is not always “lesser” than organized retail theft, because theft of more than $3,000 in property or services can be a class four felony, and $25,000 or more is a class three felony; organized retail theft is a class four felony regardless of the value of goods.
State v. George 313 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. George 313 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. ROMAR 212 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. ROMAR 212 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 15 , (explaining the "failure to raise a claim at trial waives appellate review of that claim, even if the error is of constitutional dimension”).
Curtis v. Richardson 131 P.3d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Curtis v. Richardson 131 P.3d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. McDermott 93 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. McDermott 93 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
390 ¶ 18, see also Kaiser, 204 Ariz. at 517 -18 ¶ 9, 65 P.3d at 466 -67 “The requirement of a fair and definite warning does not necessitate perfect notice or absolute precision of language.” Kaiser, 204 Ariz. at 517 ¶ 8, 65 P.3d at 466 (citations omitted); see also Grayned, 408 U.S.
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. Anderson 16 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Dayvid S. 15 P.3d 771 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Dayvid S. 15 P.3d 771 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Anderson 16 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000