Cited by

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

105 citing documents.

O'CONNOR v. Hyatt 87 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin 69 P.3d 1000 Ariz. 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin 69 P.3d 1000 Ariz. 2003
¶14 The State begins from the premise that Christian and State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, establish that Proposition 200 did not alter the status of convictions for various drug offenses as “felonies.” The State then argues that the “in excess of one year” language in Rule 609(a)(1)
State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Furthermore, “[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error,” which is not waived by Alvarez’s failure to raise it below.