Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Benak, 18 P.3d 127.

48 citing documents.

State v. Griffin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Griffin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
For sentence enhancement allegations, notice must be such that the defendant is not “misled, surprised or deceived in any way by the allegations of prior convictions.” ¶ 16 (App. 2001) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
P. 13.5(a), 16.1(b); –37, ¶ 14 (App. 2001) (“Pretrial notice enables a defendant to know the full range of potential punishment he faces upon conviction; fundamental fairness and due process require that allegations that would enhance a sentence be made before trial so that the defendant can evaluate his options.” (citations omitted))
State v. Boyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Boyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Meza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Meza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
P. 13.5(a) and 16.1(b), and “may not be alleged after the verdict is returned.” ¶ 14 (App. 2001) (“[F]undamental fairness and due process require that allegations that would enhance a sentence be made before trial so that the defendant can evaluate his options.”).
State v. Agyepong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Agyepong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
.” ¶ 16 (App. 2001) () (addressing whether a defendant had sufficient notice of State’s intent to designate prior felony convictions as dangerous under A.R.S.
State v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 13-703’s predecessor statute was sufficient to put the defendant on notice the State sought an enhanced sentence), ); ¶ 16 (App. 2001) (“In some cases, reference in the indictment or information to the statute under which the enhancement is authorized may constitute sufficient notice.”).
State v. Irvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Irvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-38, ¶¶ 15-18 (App. 2001) ().
State v. Mendoza-Saravia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mendoza-Saravia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
While the record on appeal does not contain a formal allegation by the State, any notice of an allegation of dangerousness is sufficient so long as the defendant is not “‘misled, surprised, or deceived in any way by the allegations.’” ¶ 30 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 16 (App. 2001)).
State v. Medrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Medrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
As this court has concluded, notice of allegations of dangerousness is sufficient when the defendant is not “‘misled, surprised, or deceived in any way by the allegations.’”
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 16, (notice sufficient if defendant “not ‘misled, surprised or deceived in any way by the allegations’ of prior convictions”).
State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
If the dangerous nature of the armed robbery had been properly alleged and proved and ultimately incorporated in the judgment of conviction for that offense, the court could have relied on the judgment because, “[a]lthough ‘dangerous’ and ‘violent’ are separate concepts, they share a similar definition.” (construing § 13-604.04).
State v. Gomez 127 P.3d 873 Ariz. 2006
State v. Gomez 127 P.3d 873 Ariz. 2006
§ 13-901.01 uses the word "indicted” in the simple past tense, the dissent reads the statute to exclude from mandatory probation anyone who has ever been indicted for a violent crime, -35, ¶6 , -29 (App. 2001).
State v. Gomez 102 P.3d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Gomez 102 P.3d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 5 , (holding insufficient proof of prior drug convictions requires prison sentence be vacated); -38, ¶ 18 , -32 (App.2001) (holding State’s failure to allege that prior conviction was a “violent crime” precluded prison sentence).
State of Arizona v. Mark Anthony Cons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Cons 94 P.3d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Mark Anthony Cons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
¶5 Nor is Cons’s P.3d 127 (App. 2001), availing.
State v. Cons 94 P.3d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
¶ 5 Nor is Cons’s , availing.
State v. Givens 76 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Raney v. Lindberg 76 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Givens 76 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Criticized Raney v. Lindberg 76 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
1 In answering the first question
Montero v. Foreman 64 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Montero v. Foreman 64 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
§ 13-901.01 “to implement ‘Proposition 200,’ an initiative calling for treatment rather than incarceration for those convicted of possessing dangerous drugs for personal use who do not have prior convictions for violent crimes.” -35, ¶ 6 , -29 (App.2001); 4 see also A.R.S.
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
State v. Evenson 33 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Evenson 33 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Hensley 31 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Hensley 31 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
(review denied May 23, 2001), we were asked to decide whether the State was required by A.R.S.