Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bayardi, 281 P.3d 1063.

47 citing documents.

State v. Freeman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
2 STATE v. FREEMAN Opinion of the Court 2021) (quoting Brumett); ¶ 6 (App. 2012) (“Our appellate jurisdiction is purely statutory.”) (citations omitted).
Lane v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Lane v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Brown 556 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Brown 556 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Thunderbird v. Hon. villa/phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Thunderbird v. Hon. villa/phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
–98 ¶ 7 (App. 2012); see also Ariz. R.P.
State v. Sulu-Kerr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Sulu-Kerr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
also extends, at least within constitutional bounds, to defenses.” ¶ 9 (2016); ¶ 13 (App. 2012) (“Defenses to criminal charges under Arizona law are statutory.”) (citing A.R.S.
Mayes v. Tom's Camperland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Mayes v. Tom's Camperland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Yee v. Yee 484 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Yee v. Yee 484 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Similarly, a court rule “cannot expand appellate jurisdiction beyond any statutory grant.” ¶ 7 n.3 (App. 2014).
State v. Romero 463 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Romero 463 P.3d 225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
§ 13-103(B), Romero contends the superior court should have declared him GEI as a matter of law.
State v. Hamby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hamby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 28-1381(A)(3)].” ¶ 10 (App. 2012).
Dabrowski v. Bartlett 442 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Dabrowski v. Bartlett 442 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
–98, ¶ 7 (App. 2012) (appeal treated as a special action when parties appealed from a superior court minute entry); ¶ 35 (App. 2001) (after finding appellate jurisdiction lacking, court sua sponte accepted special action jurisdiction); see also A.R.S.
Johnson Utilities v. acc/swing First Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Johnson Utilities v. acc/swing First Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 12-2101(A)(1) grants this court appellate jurisdiction over the superior court’s final judgment in a special action); ¶¶ 24-26 (App. 2012) (Thompson, J., concurring).
State v. Hon kalauli/kroll 414 P.3d 690 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hon kalauli/kroll 414 P.3d 690 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Phx. City Prosecutor v. Lowery 418 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Phx. City Prosecutor v. Lowery 418 P.3d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See State v. Bayardi , , 197 n. 4, ¶ 7, , 1065 (App. 2012).
Brailsford v. Foster 393 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Brailsford v. Foster 393 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 13-103(B) (emphasis added); ¶¶ 13-21 , (discussing distinction between affirmative defenses, justifications and defenses that deny an element of the charge)
Unted v. Gammage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Unted v. Gammage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
1(a); –98 ¶ 7 (App. 2012).3 II.
State of Arizona v. Bhajanpal Chopra 387 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Bhajanpal Chopra 387 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
§§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031; (“Our appellate jurisdiction is purely statutory.”).
State v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Calderon v. Mennenga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Calderon v. Mennenga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
1(a); -98 ¶ 7 (App. 2012).
Aea v. T&K Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Aea v. T&K Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 12-2101; see also Milner, 198 Ariz. at 26, 6 P.3d at 331; ¶ 6, (noting that the right to appeal in Arizona is “purely statutory”).
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
” , -69 (App.2012), quoting In re Maricopa Cnty.
State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Actions 1(a); , -66 (App.2012).
Madrid v. Avalon Care Center-Chandler, L.L.C. 338 P.3d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Madrid v. Avalon Care Center-Chandler, L.L.C. 338 P.3d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
DISCUSSION ¶3 This court’s “appellate jurisdiction is purely statutory.” (citing Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 9 and Hall Family Props., Ltd. v. Gosnell Dev.
Dobson v. McClennen 337 P.3d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Dobson v. McClennen 337 P.3d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
If ambiguity exists, the court applies “secondary principles of statutory construction and eonsider[s] other relevant information, including the history, context, and spirit and purpose of the law, to glean legislative intent.” , 222 ¶ 13, (citations omitted); , 198 ¶ 12
Mack v. Hon. dellas/phoenix 326 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mack v. Hon. dellas/phoenix 326 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See, ¶ 7, (exercising special action jurisdiction over appeal after finding appellate jurisdiction lacking).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by