DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

107 citing documents.

  • State v. Curiel-Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Curiel-Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 22, (holding that possession of a dangerous drug is a lesser-included offense of transportation for sale of a dangerous drug); ¶ 13, (stating that “when a possession for sale charge is incidental to a transportation for sale charge, the former is a lesser-included offense”).
  • State v. Denson 382 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Denson 382 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 11 , (elements test for lesser-included offenses); ¶ 8 , (same).
  • State of Arizona v. Michael Anthony Salcido 362 P.3d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Michael Anthony Salcido 362 P.3d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    (possession lesser-included offense of transportation for sale); (“For double jeopardy purposes, a lesser-included offense and the greater offense of which it is a part constitute the same offense, and multiple punishments for the same offense are not permissible.”); (possession for sale lesser-included offense of transportation).
  • State v. Stiefel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Stiefel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    § 13-105(35); State v. Chabolla–Hinojosa, ¶ 13
  • 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
  • State v. Erivez 341 P.3d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Erivez 341 P.3d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶14 A lesser-included offense is “one composed solely of some but not all of the elements of the greater crime so that it is impossible to have committed the [greater] crime charged without having committed the lesser one.” ¶ 11, (citation omitted); -30, ¶ 6, -89 (App. 2014).
  • State of Arizona v. Javier Solis 338 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Javier Solis 338 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    ¶ 10, (emphasis omitted).
  • State v. Garcia 334 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Garcia 334 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    See Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 421 (1980); –63 ¶¶ 10–13, –97 (App. 1998).
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    at 448-49, ¶¶ 9-12, 189 P.3d at 375-76; -24, ¶¶ 7-9, -73 (App. 2008) (holding that to convict a defendant of an offense and its lesser-included offense is fundamental, prejudicial error because they are considered the same offense for purposes of double jeopardy); -63, ¶ 10, -97 (App. 1998).
  • State v. Gonsalves 297 P.3d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Gonsalves 297 P.3d 927 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    However, “[o]ne who exercises dominion or control over property has constructive possession of it even if it is not in his physical possession.” ¶ 13
  • State v. Braidick 295 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Braidick 295 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    We note that “the prohibition against double jeopardy protects against further prosecution for that or any lesser-included offense.” -63, ¶ 10 , -97 (App.1998).
  • State v. Gonzalez 210 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Gonzalez 210 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    lesser-included offense, we consider whether the alleged lesser offense “is, by its very nature, always a constituent part of the greater offense, or whether the charging document describes the lesser offense even though it does not always make up a constituent part of the greater offense.” ¶ 5 , ( ¶ 12 , ).
  • State of Arizona v. William John Fiihr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • State of Arizona v. William John Fiihr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    The test for whether an offense is “lesser-included” is whether it is, by its very nature, always a constituent part of the greater offense, or whether the charging document describes the lesser offense even though it does not always make up a constituent part of the greater offense.’” 4 -51 (App. 2006), -67, -48 (1984).
  • State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    as ‘whether [the purported lesser included offense] is, by its very nature, always a constituent part of the greater offense or whether the charging document describes the lesser offense even though it does not always make up a constituent part of the greater offense.’” (emphasis omitted)
  • State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
    - 6 - ¶12 The court of appeals reached a P.2d 94 (App. 1998), when addressing whether a person can transport marijuana for sale without possessing it.
  • State v. Price 183 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • State v. Price 183 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    ¶¶ 6-7 , -31 (App. 2000); ¶¶ 10-12 , -97 (App. 1998).
  • State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • Distinguished State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • In Re Jerry C. 151 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • In Re Jerry C. 151 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Price 145 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • State v. Price 145 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • Lemke v. Rayes 141 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • Lemke v. Rayes 141 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    State v. Baker, 456 So.2d 419, 422 (Fla.1984); ¶ 12 , (“The test for whether an offense is ‘lesser-included’ is whether it is, by its very nature, always a constituent part of the greater offense, or whether the charging document describes the lesser offense even though it does not always make up a constituent part of the greater o
  • State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    3 whether an offense is ‘lesser-included’ is whether it is, by its very nature, always a constituent part of the greater offense, or whether the charging document describes the lesser offense even though it does not always make up a constituent part of the greater offense.” -67, -48 (1984)
  • In Re Jeremiah T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • In Re Jeremiah T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    has been articulated as ‘whether [the purported lesser-included offense] is, by its very nature, always a constituent part of the greater offense, or whether the charging document describes the lesser offense even though it does not always make up a constituent part of the greater offense.’” (emphasis and alteration in Siddle).
  • State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    Put another way, a court must ascertain “whether the greater offense, as described by a statute or as charged, can be committed without necessarily committing the lesser offense.” P.2d 94 (App. 1998).
  • 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
    § 13-105(30); , (“One who exercises dominion or control over property has constructive possession of it even if it is not in his physical possession.”); , (upholding conviction for knowingly possessing prohibited weapon found under defendant
  • State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    In the context of lesser-included offenses, the test has been articulated as “whether [the purported lesser-included offense] is, by its very nature, always a constituent part of the greater offense, or whether the charging document describes the lesser offense even though it does not always make up a constituent part of the greater offense.” , (emphasis added).