Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Aragon v. Wilkinson, 97 P.3d 886.

24 citing documents.

State v. Hon. conn/lunsford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon. conn/lunsford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Veronica Sanchez-Equihua 326 P.3d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Steven D. Szpyrka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Steven D. Szpyrka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Unlike cases cited by Szpyrka, see, the state here did not initiate proceedings to vacate the plea agreement, but merely responded to Szpyrka’s attempt to have his sentence modified contrary to the terms of the agreement.7 Viewing the plea agreement as “an integrated plea to [b]oth the substantive offense and a va
In re MH 2007-000629 197 P.3d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 197 P.3d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 197 P.3d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
No one formula for maintaining the appropriate courtroom atmosphere will be best in all situations."); , ("[A trial judge] is allowed to take those necessary measures to provide for the orderly disposition of criminal cases."); ¶ 15 , (recognizing trial court's inherent authority to conduct proceedings necessary to exercise its jurisdiction).
In re MH 2007-000629 197 P.3d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
No one formula for maintaining the appropriate courtroom atmosphere will be best in all situations.”); , (“[A trial judge] is allowed to take those necessary measures to provide for the orderly disposition of criminal cases.”); ¶ 15 , (recognizing trial court’s inherent authority to conduct proceedings necessary to exercise its jurisdiction).
State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
State v. Keith 122 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Keith 122 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
County of Maricopa, , (“[I]f the court accepts the guilty plea, jeopardy attaches ....”).
State v. Ward 118 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Ward 118 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Brown 115 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Brown 115 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(accepting special action jurisdiction based on conclusion that constitutional issues relating to Blakely are of first impression and statewide importance).
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
¶ 6; (“the court may utilize its inherent authority to convene a jury trial on the existence of facts that may support imposition of an aggravated sentence”).
State v. Timmons 103 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Timmons 103 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
¶ 19 Although the current sentencing scheme does not provide specifically for a jury trial during the sentencing phase of a noncapital case, a “court may utilize its inherent authority to convene a jury trial on the existence of facts that may support imposition of an aggravated sentence.”
State v. Gatliff 102 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Gatliff 102 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Conn 98 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Conn 98 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
at 47, ¶ 26, 31 P.3d at 821 ; see also Nichols, , (notice of enhancement allegation required and jury trial afforded); Aragon v. Wilkinson (State), , (authorizing jury trial on facts alleged in aggravation).