Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Canion, 16 P.3d 788.

42 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. William Maurice Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
¶¶ 19-20 (App. 2000); see also Williams, (defendant cannot be convicted and sentenced for both felony murder and second-degree murder for death of one victim).
State of Arizona v. William Maurice Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶¶ 19-20 (App. 2000); see also Williams, (defendant cannot be convicted and sentenced for both felony murder and second-degree murder for death of one victim).
State of Arizona v. Timothy Edward Egan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Timothy Edward Egan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
(“The jury could not have been surprised to hear that [the defendant] believed the officer was mistaken in his recollection of the events, .
State v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Russo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Russo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 13 (App. 2000) (holding that because the jury found the defendant guilty of felony murder, the jury’s “extra” guilty verdict on second degree murder as a lesser included offense of premeditated first degree murder was of no impact).
State v. Trevino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Trevino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State of Arizona v. Lazaro Enrique Villa, Jr. 548 P.3d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Lazaro Enrique Villa, Jr. 548 P.3d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
(“[T]here are no lesser-included offenses to felony murder.”).
State v. Clay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Clay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hobbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hobbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 9 (2013) ( ¶ 26 (App. 2000)).
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Patron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Patron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Skinner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Skinner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Notwithstanding those arguments, “an illegal sentence can be reversed on appeal despite the lack of an objection.” ¶10, ( ); ¶ 18, (“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error that may be reversed on appeal, despite the lack of an
State v. Williams 302 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Williams 302 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Consistent with this court’s , we vacate Williams’ conviction and sentence for second-degree murder.
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
And “a trial court may rely on counsel’s waiver of a defendant’s right to be present” in certain circumstances; “personal waiver by the defendant is not required.” ¶ 26, (“Unless the circumstances are exceptional, a defendant is bound by his counsel’s waiver of his constitutional rights.” (citing Henry v. Mississippi
State v. PROVENZINO 212 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. PROVENZINO 212 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
5 While Defendant concedes that he did not object below, “an illegal sentence may be reversed on appeal despite the lack of an objection.” ¶10
State v. Smith 173 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Smith 173 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-41 (App.2002) (Although the defendant did not object in the trial court and his sentences did not exceed the legal máximums he would be eligible for had the correct ranges been used, the sentencing process "was fundamentally flawed” and constituted fundamental error because it used ranges not permitted absent proof the offenses were committed while the defendant was on parole.); ¶¶ 7-8, 10 , (In a case where the judge imposed a sentence for felony murder after the jury found the defendant guilt
Canion v. Cole 115 P.3d 1261 Ariz. 2005
Canion v. Cole 115 P.3d 1261 Ariz. 2005
-30, ¶¶ 2-8, -91, (App. 2000).
State v. Dewakuku 92 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Dewakuku 92 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Canion v. Cole Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 91 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Canion v. Cole Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 91 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 10 , (review denied Apr.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by