Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Merlina v. Jejna, 90 P.3d 202.

72 citing documents.

State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 14 n.4 (App. 2004); see also A.R.S.
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶16 “Charges are multiplicitous if they charge a single offense in multiple counts.” ¶ 12 (App. 2004).
State v. Quijada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Quijada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Boisvert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Boisvert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“We review the superior court’s legal conclusions de novo.” ¶ 6 (App. 2004).
State v. Kelly 545 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Kelly 545 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Multiplicitous charges are not unlawful in themselves, ¶ 13 (App. 2004), but only become so if a defendant receives multiple sentences for the same crime, id.
State v. Andersen 531 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Andersen 531 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Gaspar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gaspar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 10 (App. 2013) (“[T]he crime of murder of a single victim necessarily results in one [murder] conviction and one sentence.”); ¶ 12 (App. 2004) (“Charges are multiplicitous if they charge a single offense in multiple counts.”).
State v. Langston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Langston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 14 n.4 (App. 2004) (the proper remedy for duplicative sentences is merger).
State v. Renteria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Renteria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Chayrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Chayrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
90 ¶ 12 (App. 2004) (“We determine multiplicity by applying the test enunciated in Blockburger[.]”).
Brian H. v. MacArena H., I.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Brian H. v. MacArena H., I.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Williamson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Williamson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 14 n.4 (App. 2004) (holding that multiplicitous charges “can be remedied at any time by merging the convictions and permitting only a single sentence”) (citing United States v. Reed, 639 F.2d 896, 904 n.6 (2d Cir. 1981), ¶ 13 (App. 2000)).
State v. Aguilar-Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Aguilar-Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
United States v. Woodward, 469 U.S. 105, 108 (1985) (emphasis omitted); ¶ 12 (App. 2004) (“Offenses are not the same, and therefore not multiplicitous, if each requires proof of a fact that the other does not.”).
State v. Keeten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Eisenmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Eisenmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
n.4, ¶ 14 (App. 2004) (“The principal danger in multiplicity [—] that the defendant will be given multiple sentences for the same offense [—] can be remedied at any time by merging the convictions and permitting only a single sentence.”); see also A.R.S.
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 12 (App. 2004) (“Offenses are not the same, and therefore not multiplicitous, if each requires proof of a fact that the other does not.”).
State v. Berliew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Berliew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶13 “Charges are multiplicitous if they charge a single offense in multiple counts.” ¶ 12 (App. 2004).
Spence v. Bacal 413 P.3d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Spence v. Bacal 413 P.3d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Merlina v. Jejna , , ¶ 6, , 204 (App. 2004).
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“Offenses are not the same, and therefore not multiplicitous, if each requires proof of a fact that the other does not.” ¶ 12 (App. 2004); see Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932).
Brenda D. v. Department of Child Safety 393 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Brenda D. v. Department of Child Safety 393 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 11 , ¶ 7 , (the same rules of statutory construction apply in the interpretation of a procedural rule) (citing Devenir Assocs.
Peter J. Kaniowsky v. the Pima County Consolidated Justice Court The Hon. Maria L. Felix 371 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Peter J. Kaniowsky v. the Pima County Consolidated Justice Court The Hon. Maria L. Felix 371 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Charges are multiplicitous if they charge a single offense in multiple counts.” ¶ 12, (citation omitted).
Juvan v. Hon. eppich/mesa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Juvan v. Hon. eppich/mesa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
DISCUSSION ¶5 “We review a special action in which the superior court accepts jurisdiction but denies relief for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 6
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Strong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by