Cited by

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

105 citing documents.

State v. Morgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Generally, however, “[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” ¶ 4, (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Daniel Andrew Snider 311 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Daniel Andrew Snider 311 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
However, “[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.”
State v. Burns 298 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Burns 298 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 4 , (order prematurely reducing criminal fines to restitution order, in violation of statutory mandate, is illegal sentence that constitutes fundamental error); ¶ 4 , (eiToneous use of prior felony to enhance sentence could constitute fundamental error).
State of Arizona v. Linda Ann Siplivy 265 P.3d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Linda Ann Siplivy 265 P.3d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
However, “[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.”
State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasic 265 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasic 265 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Martinez 245 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Martinez 245 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
However, the “[ijmposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.”
State v. Hatch 239 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Hatch 239 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
sly designed to avoid embroiling the courts in technical disputes as to whether a particular crime was a misdemeanor or a felony under state law.” Martin, 205 Ariz. at 283, ¶¶ 13-16 , 69 P.3d at 1004 (holding that the determination that offenses covered by Proposition 200 remained “felonies” for sentence enhancement purposes, , , was immaterial to the Rule 609(a) question).
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
340 n. 2, ¶ 4, , 369 n. 2 (App.2002) (court would not apply invited error doctrine when it could not tell which party proposed the stipulation).
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See Soria, , 170 P.3d at 712 (unauthorized warrant fee was illegal sentence and constituted fundamental error); ¶¶ 4, 11 , 788 (App.2009) (early entry of administrative fees at sentencing illegal “because it requires a defendant to make additional payments that are not authorized by law”); , (imposition of illegal sentence is fundamental error); -23 , -82 (App. 1997) (imposition of surcharge in addition to fine on indigent defendant abuse of discretion and fundamental error when defendant failed
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See Soria, 170 P.3d at 712 (unauthorized warrant fee was illegal sentence and constituted fundamental error); ¶¶ 4, 11, 788 (App. 2009) (early entry of administrative fees at sentencing illegal “because it requires a defendant to make additional payments that are not authorized by law”); (imposition of illegal sentence is fundamental error); -23, -82 (App. 1997) (imposition of surcharge in addition to fine on indigent defendant abuse of discretion and fundamental error when defendant failed to r
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
See Morales, 215 Ariz. at 61, ¶ 10 , 157 P.3d at 481 ; ¶ 4
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. Bryant 200 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Jerry Don Bryant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Jerry Don Bryant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
162 Ariz. at 326-27, 783 P.2d at 265-66; see also Dawson, (citing Vargas-Burgos for proposition that illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error); (illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error); (same).
State v. Bryant 200 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
162 Ariz. at 326-27, 783 P.2d at 265-66; see also Dawson, , (citing Vargas-Burgos for proposition that illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error); , (illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error); , (same).
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
v. Joyner, , 136 n. 1, 137, ¶¶ 1, 4-5, , 265 n. 1, 266 (App.2007) (Where the defendant argued for the first time on appeal that his prior convictions did not meet the statutory definition for “violent crime,” the court held that improperly imposing a sentence under a mandatory sentencing statute results in an illegal sentence and is fundamental error.); , 340 n. 2, ¶¶ 1, 4, , 369 n. 2 (App.2002) (holding that a defendant’s stipulation to a prior Proposition 200 drug paraphernalia conviction is n
State of Arizona v. Francisco Lazaro Gonzalez, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Francisco Lazaro Gonzalez, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
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
And we have held that the “[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” 1 Although Joyner had argued in a sentencing memorandum that “on the current state of the record probation is still mandatory .
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
State of Arizona v. Robert Michael Hollenback Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Robert Michael Hollenback Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Renee Sue Ruggiero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Renee Sue Ruggiero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
See Henderson, 2005 WL 1594359, ¶ 1; (“[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error” that is not waived by defendant’s failure to raise it).
State v. Alire 105 P.3d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Alire 105 P.3d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 4 , (sentence enhancement); ¶ 13 , ("sentencing process was fundamentally flawed" due to consideration of incorrect sentencing range, even though length of sentence did not exceed statutory maximum).
State v. Resendis-Felix 100 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Resendis-Felix 100 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Richard Emanuel Ray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Richard Emanuel Ray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
O'CONNOR v. Hyatt 87 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004