Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Bowers v. Superior Court, 839 P.2d 454.
- State of Arizona v. Rachel Marie Vallejo 158 P.3d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
- State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
-
State v. Secord
88 P.3d 587
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(special action appropriate vehicle for state's challenge to trial court’s interlocutory order rejecting plea agreement).
- Raney v. Lindberg 76 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
-
Raney v. Lindberg
76 P.3d 867
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
) (prosecutor has sole discretion to allege prior convictions for purposes of sentence enhancement).
- Demarce v. Willrich 56 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
- Demarce v. Willrich 56 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
- State v. Benak 18 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
-
State v. Benak
18 P.3d 127
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
(prosecution has sole discretion to file allegations of prior convictions for purposes of enhancing sentence).
- Hennessey v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-
Hennessey v. Superior Court
947 P.2d 872
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
justifies our acceptance of special action jurisdiction.
- State v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR NAVAJO CO. 903 P.2d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- State v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR NAVAJO CO. 903 P.2d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- Snow v. Superior Court 903 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- Snow v. Superior Court 903 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- Espinoza v. Martin 894 P.2d 688 Ariz. 1995
- Espinoza v. Martin 894 P.2d 688 Ariz. 1995
- Scarborough v. Superior Court 889 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- Scarborough v. Superior Court 889 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- State v. Moerman 895 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- State v. Moerman 895 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- Espinoza v. Superior Court 886 P.2d 1364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
-
Espinoza v. Superior Court
886 P.2d 1364
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
The Attorney General’s Office, representing the respondent judge, argues that this court should not accept jurisdiction because *611
- State v. Renner 868 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
-
State v. Renner
868 P.2d 978
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(a judge must independently evaluate each plea bargain that is entered in his or her court “to see if the ends of justice and the protection of the public are being served”); , (acceptance or rejection of a plea bargain is a disc