Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Chabolla-Hinojosa, 965 P.2d 94.

107 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Damrrion Jacquis Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
State of Arizona v. Damrrion Jacquis Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
Sorensen, ¶¶ 10-11; n.2 (App. 1998) (recognizing repeal of transportation of marijuana as a criminal offense and replacement with transportation for sale).
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
at 320, ¶ 11 ( ¶ 16 n.2 (App. 1998) (explaining “[t]he crime of transportation of marijuana no longer exists in Arizona”)).
State v. Piper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Piper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Sorensen 531 P.3d 378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Sorensen 531 P.3d 378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
§ 13–3405(A)(4) (transporting marijuana); ¶ 16 n.2 (App. 1998) (explaining “[t]he crime of transportation of marijuana no longer exists in Arizona” following the Legislature’s repeal of the former § 13-3405(A)(4) in 1987).
State v. Mason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Mason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Cawthon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Cawthon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“One who exercises dominion or control over property has constructive possession of it even if it is not in his physical possession.” ¶ 13 (App. 1998).
State v. Gilmore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Gilmore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Under the charging document test, we determine “whether the charging document describes the lesser offense even though it does not always make 2 STATE v. GILMORE Decision of the Court up a constituent part of the greater offense.” State v. Chabolla–Hinojosa, ¶ 12 (App. 1998).
State v. Chayrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Chayrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See State v. Chabolla–Hinojosa, ¶ 21 (App. 1998).
State v. Conchola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Conchola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Fender Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Fender Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶11 “[W]hen a person is convicted of an offense, the prohibition against double jeopardy protects against further prosecution for that or any lesser-included offense.” -63, 4 STATE v. FENDER Decision of the Court ¶ 10 (App. 1998).
State v. Farid Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Farid Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Accord State v. Chabolla–Hinojosa, ¶ 16 (App. 1998) (noting in dicta, “an importation charge has no ‘for sale’ element”).
State v. Prado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Prado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“[W]hen the charged possession for sale is incidental to the charged transportation for sale, it is a lesser-included offense, for a person cannot commit the transportation offense without necessarily committing the possession offense.” ¶ 12 (App. 1998).
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 421 (1980); ¶ 5 (App. 2014); –63, ¶¶ 10–13 (App. 1998).
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-32, ¶ 21 (App. 1998) (recognizing that double jeopardy may be implicated when “the same act or transaction” violates two distinct criminal statutes); ¶ 12 (App. 1998) (“[W]hen the charged possession for sale is incidental to the charged transportation for sale, it is a lesser-included offense, for a person cannot commit the transportation offense without necessarily committing the possession offense.”).
State v. Wesley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wesley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Cronan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Cronan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
The State concedes the point, concluding that “Cronan’s conviction and sentence for the lesser- included Count One should be vacated.” ¶ 11 (2008) (“Given Arizona’s broad definition of ‘possess,’ we cannot conceive how a person can ‘transport’ drugs without having possession of or dominion or control over them.”); ¶ 13 (App. 1998) (“Given the broad definition of ‘possess,’ when a possession for sale charge is incidental to a transportation for sale charge, the former is a lesser-included offense
State v. Eisenmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Eisenmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶¶ 11-12 (App. 1998) (lesser-included offense is composed solely of some but not all the elements of the greater crime and is “always a constituent part of the greater offense”).
State v. Carter 429 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Carter 429 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
(quoting State v. Chabolla-Hinojosa , , ¶ 12, , 97 (App. 1998) ).
State v. Figueroa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Figueroa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Barrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Barrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 421 (1980); ¶ 5 (App. 2014); State v. Chabolla–Hinojosa, –63, ¶¶ 10–13 (App. 1998).
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cope 387 P.3d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cope 387 P.3d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
at 629-30, ¶ 6 ( ¶ 11 (App. 1998)).