Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Thues, 54 P.3d 368.

105 citing documents.

State v. Edgemon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Strover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Strover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Boyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Boyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Emedi 484 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Emedi 484 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” ¶ 17 (App. 2020) ( ¶ 4 (App. 2007)).
State v. Davidsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Davidsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State of Arizona v. Demitres Robertson 468 P.3d 1217 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Demitres Robertson 468 P.3d 1217 Ariz. 2020
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” ¶ 4 (App. 2007).
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 29 (App. 2014); ¶ 4 (App. 2002).
State v. Mendoza 455 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Mendoza 455 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See State v. Thues, 18 STATE v. MENDOZA Opinion of the Court ¶ 4 (App. 2007) (“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.”).
State v. Tapia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Tapia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 32 (App. 2007); ¶ 4 (App. 2002).
State v. Mora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Mora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Valles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Valles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶17 “The failure to impose a sentence in conformity with mandatory sentencing statutes makes the resulting sentence illegal,” and the “[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error,” ¶ 4 (App. 2002); ¶ 7 (App. 2013).
In Re Kalib A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In Re Kalib A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
.”); J.U., 241 Ariz. at 159, ¶ 9 (“A restitution order that is not supported by statutory authority is fundamental, prejudicial error.”); ¶ 4 (App. 2002) (“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.”).
State v. Meeks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Meeks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
And we have held that the “[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” ¶ 4 (App. 2002).
State v. Hawthorne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hawthorne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶11 As the State concedes, Hawthorne’s sentence resulted in fundamental error because he was sentenced for a class 2 felony despite the jury’s finding that the stolen property had a value of “$3,000 or more, but less than $25,000.” ¶ 4 (App. 2002).
State v. Ceasar 383 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ceasar 383 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
But § 13-105 itself recognizes that its general definitions—including the definition of a felony—apply “unless the context otherwise requires.” ¶ 9
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 11 (App. 2006); ¶ 4 (App. 2002).
State of Arizona v. Lynn Lavern Burbey 381 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Lynn Lavern Burbey 381 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
¶ 11 (noting purpose of invited error doctrine is to prevent a party from injecting error in the record and profiting from it on appeal); n.2, n.2 (App. 2002) (refusing to apply invited error doctrine where record did not reflect which party proposed stipulation which was source of error); (finding acceptance of ruling with “uncharacteristic acquiescence and meekness
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
While Appellant raised no objections to his sentences with the trial court, “[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” ¶ 4
State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 104 (2005) (noting defendant’s failure to challenge trial court’s use of aggravators other than one found by the court forecloses claim of Blakely error); Munninger, 213 Ariz. at 397, ¶ 12 (sentence that is within prescribed aggravated range despite use of improper aggravator is a legal sentence); ¶ 4 (App. 2002) (“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.”).
State v. Kirby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kirby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Generally, “[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” ¶ 4 (App. 2002) ( ¶ 13 (App. 2002)).
State v. Doody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Doody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Even so, “[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” ¶ 4
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 14, (citing Morales, 215 Ariz. at 61, ¶ 10, 157 P.3d at 481, ¶ 4, ), vacated in part on other grounds, P.3d 1129 (2010).
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
State v. Morgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014