Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lemke v. Rayes, 141 P.3d 407.

59 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Ronald David Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Ronald David Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Double Jeopardy ¶14 The Double Jeopardy Clauses in our federal and state constitutions protect against “(1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense.” see U.S. Const. amend.
Moreno Meza v. Hon lafave/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Moreno Meza v. Hon lafave/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
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
Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 167–68 (1977); ¶ 18 (App. 2006).
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Bobby Ray Carter Jr 469 P.3d 449 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Bobby Ray Carter Jr 469 P.3d 449 Ariz. 2020
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“Collateral estoppel simply means that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be relitigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.” -41, ¶ 23 (App. 2006) (internal quotation omitted).
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 10 (App. 2006); see also U.S. Const. amend.
State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 10 (App. 2006); see also U.S. Const. amend.
State v. Weatherspoon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Weatherspoon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Carter 429 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Carter 429 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Lemke v. Rayes , , ¶ 10, , 411-12 (App. 2006) (footnote omitted); see U.S. Const. amend.
State v. Braxton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Braxton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶18 The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments “protects against multiple punishment for the same offense.” Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 498 (1984); ¶ 10 (App. 2006).
State v. Podergois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Podergois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Martin 424 P.3d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Martin 424 P.3d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Lemke v. Rayes , , 236, ¶ 10 and n.2, , 411-12 and n.2 (App. 2006) ; U.S. Const. amend.
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments “protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.” Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 498 (1984); ¶ 10 (App. 2006).
State v. Dodd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dodd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mutuberria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mutuberria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
V; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 10, affords protections “‘only if there has been some event, such as an acquittal, which terminates the original jeopardy,’” ¶ 19 (App. 2006) (quoting Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317, 325 (1984), and citing Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 167-69 (1977)).
State v. Cabrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cabrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-37, ¶ 10, -12 (App. 2006).
Milke v. Mroz 339 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Milke v. Mroz 339 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 6 , ¶ 2 , Pool v. Superior Court In & For Pima Cnty.
Juvan v. Hon. eppich/mesa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Juvan v. Hon. eppich/mesa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
V; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 10; ¶ 10, (citing United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 744 (1993), ).
State of Arizona v. Shiloe Dominique Espinoza 310 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Shiloe Dominique Espinoza 310 P.3d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State v. Williams 302 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
“The Double Jeopardy Clauses in the United States and Arizona Constitutions prohibit: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense.” (footnote omitted).
State of Arizona v. Jerrold Dean Broman 265 P.3d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Jerrold Dean Broman 265 P.3d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Action No. J-83341-S, n.2, n.2 (App. 2006) (“The double jeopardy protections extended by the Arizona Constitution are coextensive with those provided by its federal counterpart.”).
State of Arizona v. Michelle D. Sprang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Michelle D. Sprang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Further, “[t]he double jeopardy protections extended by the Arizona Constitution are coextensive with those provided by its federal counterpart.” n.2, n.2 (App. 2006).
State of Arizona v. Danny Louis Musgrove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Danny Louis Musgrove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Joshua Paul Eugene Huffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009