DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Welch, 12 P.3d 229.

36 citing documents.

  • State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶ 14 n.4 (App. 2004) (holding that multiplicitous charges “can be remedied at any time by merging the convictions and permitting only a single sentence”) (citing United States v. Reed, 639 F.2d 896, 904 n.6 (2d Cir. 1981), ¶ 13 (App. 2000)).
  • State v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    V; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 10; ¶¶ 7, 8 (App. 2002); ¶ 6 (App. 2000).
  • State v. Berliew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Berliew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    We agree that Berliew was convicted of multiplicitous charges, but we do not vacate the conviction and sentence, ¶ 13 (2000) (stating this Court may correct the error of convicting a defendant to multiplicitous charges by vacating the conviction and sentence for the lesser-included crime), because Berliew does not show she was prejudiced by the error, ¶ 9 (App. 2013) (providing that fa
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State of Arizona v. William Peter Moran 307 P.3d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. William Peter Moran 307 P.3d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Guillermo C. Becerra 291 P.3d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Guillermo C. Becerra 291 P.3d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    ¶¶ 6, 13, -31, 232 (App. 2000).
  • State of Arizona v. Xavier Hipolito Estrella 286 P.3d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • State of Arizona v. Xavier Hipolito Estrella 286 P.3d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    The state may charge both lesser-included and greater offenses, , but a defendant may not be convicted for both
  • Susan Scheerer v. State of Arizona 281 P.3d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • Susan Scheerer v. State of Arizona 281 P.3d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    ¶9 Scheerer also argues that, because the state never sought a stay of her original sentence, the respondent judge’s order that she not be credited with the time she served in home detention, thus requiring her to serve an additional forty-three days in jail, would result in her being “punished twice for the same conduct.” (Double Jeopardy Clause “protect[s] against .
  • STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    the same standard generally is used to analyze both provisions.‟” n.2, n.2 (App. 2004), n.2, n.2 (App. 2000).
  • 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
    ure, 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. 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. Bartolini 155 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Bartolini 155 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    2536 , 81 L.Ed.2d 425 (1984); ¶ 6
  • Merlina v. Jejna 90 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Merlina v. Jejna 90 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    ¶ 13 , (conviction of two offenses, one of which is a lesser included charge, can be corrected by vacating conviction and sentence for the lesser-included offense).
  • State v. Wilson 82 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State v. Wilson 82 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    The double jeopardy provisions in the federal and Arizona constitutions "do not significantly differ, and the same standard generally is used to analyze both provisions.” n. 2, n. 2 (App.2000); , 364—65, -81 (App.1995).
  • Peak v. Acuna 50 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2002
  • Peak v. Acuna 50 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2002
    (greater offense cannot be committed without committing lesser); State v. Welch, 198 Ariz. 554, (same).
  • 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
  • State v. Tschilar 27 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Tschilar 27 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001