Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Jensen, 970 P.2d 937.

44 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Larry Dean Anderson 547 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Larry Dean Anderson 547 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2024
¶ 26 (App. 1999) (“The Arizona [L]egislature enacted laws effective January 1, 1994, eliminating the possibility of parole for crimes committed after that date.”); ¶ 21 (App. 1998) (noting that § 41-1604.09 “provides for parole eligibility of persons incarcerated for felonies committed before January 1, 1994”).
State v. Castillejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Castillejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“Interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.” ¶ 16 (App. 1998).
State v. Mauceli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mauceli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc., ¶ 8 (App. 1999); –08, ¶ 16 (App. 1998).
State v. Van Daalen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Van Daalen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hackman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hackman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Rios 237 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Rios 237 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Shrum 203 P.3d 1175 Ariz. 2009
State v. Shrum 203 P.3d 1175 Ariz. 2009
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
See City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc.
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶¶ 9-13, -39 (App. 1998).
In Re James P. 153 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re James P. 153 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
O'BRIEN v. Escher 65 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
O'BRIEN v. Escher 65 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
That statute “is a clear and unequivocal expression of legislative intent that an offender’s punishment is to be determined when he commits his offense.” Baker, 190 Ariz. at 339 , 947 P.2d at 913 (Proposition 200 not applicable to defendants who committed specified offenses before Act’s effective date but were convicted thereafter)
Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
That statute “is a clear and unequivocal expression of legislative intent that an offender’s punishment is to be determined when he commits his offense.” Baker, 190 Ariz. at 339, 947 P.2d at 913 (Proposition 200 not applicable to defendants who committed specified offenses before Act’s effective date but were convicted thereafter)
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
disturb[s] vested substantive rights by retroactively changing the law that applies to completed events.” San Carlos, , ; see also Shane B.; , ¶¶ 16, 24 , ¶¶ 16, 24 (App.1998).
State v. Viramontes 27 P.3d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Viramontes 27 P.3d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
1973 Ariz.Sess.Laws, ch. 138, § 5; see also Lopez; , (1973 amendments to satisfy Furman requirements).
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
State v. Skiba 19 P.3d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Skiba 19 P.3d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 16 , (“Interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.”).
State v. Decenzo 18 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Wiley 16 P.3d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Wiley 16 P.3d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
¶ 5 “Interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.”
State v. Decenzo 18 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Samano 11 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Samano 11 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 16 , (citing U.S. Parking Sys.
State v. Heartfield 998 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Heartfield 998 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Tamplin 986 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Tamplin 986 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999