Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Jenkins, 970 P.2d 947.

56 citing documents.

State v. Stevenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Stevenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
§ 13-701.D.11; (4) ¶ 27 (App. 1998); and (5) there was a
State v. Sizemore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Sizemore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Walls-Bey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Walls-Bey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-21 ¶¶ 18-19 (App. 1998).
State v. Cline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Cline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
We generally review sentencing claims for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 25 (App. 1998), but we review un-objected sentencing orders for fundamental error, see Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 140, ¶ 12.
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Price Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Price Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
And while community supervision is mandatory under Arizona law, ¶ 11 (App. 1998), the court must impose it as part of the sentence, see A.R.S.
State v. Muehlhausen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Muehlhausen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
section 13-603(I), read in conjunction with the related statutes, indicates the Legislature’s intent to require a term of community supervision for all prisoners, whether or not they are eligible for early release.” ¶ 11 (App. 1998).
State v. Dikes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dikes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 5 (App. 1998) (this court reviews the grant or denial of post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion).
State v. De Groote Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. De Groote Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jacott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jacott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 15 (App. 1998) (defendant’s claim he was unaware sentence “must be served without possibility of early release” not colorable when “directly contradicted by the record”).
State v. Hastings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hastings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 11 (App. 1998) (“The plain language of A.R.S.
State v. Nunez-Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Nunez-Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Worrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Worrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
V (“No person shall be subject for the same offen[s]e to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”); ¶ 14 (App. 1998) (citation omitted); (“Double jeopardy principles do not proscribe successive or multiple facets of an otherwise constitutionally acceptable punishment scheme adopted by a state as punishment to be imposed as the result of any one particula
State v. Coven Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Coven Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Espino-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Espino-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Doody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Doody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vindiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vindiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 13- 603(I) (1994); -20, ¶ 13, - 52 (App. 1998).
State v. Paez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Paez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Lopez 323 P.3d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Lopez 323 P.3d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
P.2d 947 (App. 1998), that a defendant who had not been aware that he would be subject to community supervision would have to demonstrate that fact was material to his decision to plead guilty in order to obtain relief.
State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Rey David Villegas 281 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rey David Villegas 281 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
spect of earning early release credits induced [him] to enter the plea agreement.” To prevail on his claim that his plea was involuntary, Villegas was required to establish not only that he lacked knowledge of his ineligibility for earned release credits when he entered his plea, but that “his lack of knowledge was relevant and material to the making of the plea agreement.” ¶¶ 19-20, (remand for evidentiary hearing on whether failure to inform defendant of community supervision rendered plea 5 i
State v. Rios 172 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Rios 172 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 7 In construing a statute, “the court first considers the statute’s language because it is the best and most rehable evidence of the legislative intent.” ¶ 11 , (internal quotes and citation omitted).