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. Anderson, 16 P.3d 214.

44 citing documents.

  • State v. Horak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Horak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶ 33 (App. 2000) (rejecting an argument on fundamental-error review that prejudicial evidence inflamed the jury when the defendant was acquitted of several more serious charges).
  • State v. Francisco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Francisco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    See Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 (1974) ("One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness."); ¶ 15 (App. 2000).
  • State v. Hester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Hester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶ 15 (App. 2000); ¶ 8 (App. 2013) (rejecting vagueness challenge because defendant's "conduct fell squarely within the statute's ambit").
  • State v. Kavu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Kavu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶ 33 (App. 2000) (reasoning that the jury’s acquittal on some charges “undermined” defendant’s argument of 10 STATE v. KAVU Decision of the Court prejudice).
  • State v. Martens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Martens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • 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
    Although Denson did not raise a vagueness challenge in the superior court, “we may consider a vagueness challenge for the first time on appeal.” ¶ 14
  • State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 33 (App. 2000) (reasoning jury’s acquittal on some charges “undermined” defendant’s argument of prejudice); (concluding that 4 STATE v. WILSON Decision of the Court
  • State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    P. 17.2(c), 17.6; ¶ 36, (“[A] trial court must advise the defendant of .
  • State of Arizona v. George Anthony Dominguez Jr. 338 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. George Anthony Dominguez Jr. 338 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    (discussing 9 STATE v. DOMINGUEZ Opinion of the Court predecessor statute); (same).
  • State v. Sovine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Sovine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. George 313 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. George 313 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    “[A] defendant whose conduct clearly falls within the legitimate purview of the statute has no standing to challenge the statute as vague.” , 191 ¶ 15
  • State of Arizona v. Craig Michael Stefanovich 302 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Craig Michael Stefanovich 302 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    “[B]efore accepting a defendant’s admission to a prior conviction, a trial court must advise the defendant of the nature of the allegation, the effect of admitting the allegation on the defendant’s sentence, and the defendant’s right to proceed to trial and require the State to prove the allegation.”
  • State v. Young 282 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • State v. Young 282 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    Before a trial court may accept a defendant’s admission to a prior conviction, it “must advise the defendant of the nature of the allegation, the effect of admitting the allegation on the defendant’s sentence, and the defendant’s right to proceed to trial and require the State to prove the allegation.” ¶ 36 , see Ariz. R.Crim.
  • State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Geeslin 212 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Geeslin 212 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    Specifically, “a trial court must advise the defendant of the nature of the allegation, the effect of admitting the allegation on the defendant’s sentence, and the defendant’s right to proceed to trial and require the State to prove the allegation.” ¶ 36
  • Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • State v. Carter 165 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Carter 165 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    at 475 , 949 P.2d at 564 ( , ); ¶¶ 36-37 , (where State and defendant agreed that defendant’s admission to a prior conviction did not comply with Rule 17, sentence remanded for a “hearing to determine whether defendant knew from any source the rights he was giving up and the consequences of his admissions”); State v
  • State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    See, ¶ 34 , (reviewing validity of admission after effective date of Rule 17.1(e) waiver provision).
  • State of Arizona v. Daniel James Alexander Barnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State of Arizona v. Daniel James Alexander Barnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    Johnson; see also State v. Anderson, 199 Ariz. 187, ¶ 27, (“Where a statute is subject to more than one interpretation, the rule of lenity requires that doubts be resolved in favor of the defendant and against imposing the harsher punishment.”).
  • State v. McDermott 93 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. McDermott 93 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Long 83 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Long 83 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Carrasco 33 P.3d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Carrasco 33 P.3d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    3 Carrasco argues that § 13-2409 is vague because “this application of the statute criminalize[s] protected speech.” “A statute is unconstitutionally vague if it does not provide persons of ordinary intelligence reasonable notice of prohibited behavior and if it ‘fails to provide explicit standards for those who apply it,’ allowing for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”