Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re James P., 153 P.3d 1049.

32 citing documents.

In Re Delinquency of T.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re Delinquency of T.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
incorrectly noted the defendant was convicted of a completed offense, rather than the attempted offense, when the court was able “to ascertain the trial court’s intent from the record”); n.2 (App. 1994) (“When we are able to ascertain the trial court’s intention by reference to the record, remand for clarification is unnecessary.”); –24, ¶¶ 12–17 (App. 2007) (citing Contreras while recognizing an appellate court’s ability to resolve record discrepancies in the context of a delinquency adjudicati
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to I.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to I.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
“The juvenile court is in the best position to assess witness credibility,” including inconsistent testimony, so this Court “will not reweigh evidence or consider the credibility of witnesses on appeal.” ¶ 24 (App. 2007).
State v. Mason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Mason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
We are not bound by the State’s concession of error, ¶ 23 (App. 2014), and we review whether one crime is a lesser-included offense of another de novo, ¶ 12 (App. 2007).
In Re Logan E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Nathan L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Nathan L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 24 (App. 2007) (noting "[t]he juvenile court is in the best position to assess witness credibility"); Lashonda M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ.
In Re Logan E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(citation omitted)); ¶ 24 (App. 2007) (noting "[t]he juvenile court is in the best position to assess witness credibility").
In Re Eliodoro M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In Re Eliodoro M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 24 (App. 2007) 3 IN RE ELIODORO M. Decision of the Court (“[O]ur role is to determine if the evidence adduced at the hearing is sufficient to support the court’s adjudication.”).
In re Jessie T. 399 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In re Jessie T. 399 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“Whether an offense is a lesser-included offense of another crime involves a matter of statutory interpretation which we review de novo.” ¶ 12
In Re J.U. 384 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
In Re J.U. 384 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Jp Morgan v. Mgm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jp Morgan v. Mgm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 24, (recognizing the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of a witness).
Alice M. v. Department of Child Safety 345 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Alice M. v. Department of Child Safety 345 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“The juvenile court is in the best position to assess witness credibility, and [the appellate court’s] role is to determine if the evidence adduced ...
In Re Fernando R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In Re Fernando R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 24, (reviewing court “will not reweigh the evidence”).
State v. Hines 307 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Hines 307 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Garcia 258 P.3d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Garcia 258 P.3d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 18 , (“A crime is a lesser-included offense of the originally charged crime if ‘by its very nature, [it is] always a constituent part of the greater offense, or ...
State v. West 233 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. West 233 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(“ ‘[F]or one offense to be included within another, greater offense, the greater must have all the elements of the lesser plus at least one additional element.’ ”)
State v. Geeslin 225 P.3d 1129 Ariz. 2010
State v. Geeslin 225 P.3d 1129 Ariz. 2010
¶9 Whether one offense is included within another is an issue of statutory construction, Celaya, 135 Ariz. at 252, 660 P.2d at 853, which an appellate court reviews de novo, ¶ 12
State v. Simpson 173 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Simpson 173 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
We should note that in the recent case of ¶¶ 21-22 , this court indicated that sexual motivation was an element of child molestation.