Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gray v. Irwin, 987 P.2d 759.

35 citing documents.

State v. Korab Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Korab Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Green 431 P.3d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Green 431 P.3d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Moreover, as this court acknowledged in Gray v. Irwin , , ¶ 15, a defendant who has a history of more serious criminal offenses "would presumably have already received separate ...
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶6 Thomas correctly notes that, when predicated on the same facts, “[p]ossession of drugs for personal use is a lesser-included offense of possession of drugs for sale.” ¶ 12 (App. 1999).
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Grant 307 P.3d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Grant 307 P.3d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Actions 1(a), or “if a ease presents an issue of first impression and one of statewide importance that is likely to recur.” ¶ 5 , Am Dep’t of Econ.
State of Arizona v. Justin James Chase 304 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Justin James Chase 304 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Woodburn 292 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Woodburn 292 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Actions 1(a), or “if a case presents an issue of first impression and one of statewide importance that is likely to recur.” ¶ 5
State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(suggesting defendants with “prior felony convictions for homicide, sexual assault, and robbery” would be denied mandatory probation under § 13-901.01(B)).
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
¶ 12 , (rejecting the argument that prior convictions for possession for sale are not disqualifying priors under § 13 — 901.01(G) because the drafters could not have intended such a “paradoxical result”).
State of Arizona v. Tyrone Vaughn Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Tyrone Vaughn Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Morrison 56 P.3d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Morrison 56 P.3d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Welch-Doden v. Roberts 42 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Welch-Doden v. Roberts 42 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Rodriguez 23 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Rodriguez 23 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Holly v. State 18 P.3d 152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Holly v. State 18 P.3d 152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Pereyra 18 P.3d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Pereyra 18 P.3d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Estrada 4 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Estrada 4 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Foster v. Irwin 995 P.2d 272 Ariz. 2000
Foster v. Irwin 995 P.2d 272 Ariz. 2000
The court of appeals has held that Proposition 200 did not “give courts the authority to convert prior non-violent, non-drug-related felony convictions into prior personal possession convictions.”
State v. Thomas 996 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Thomas 996 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
and by considering factors such as the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.”

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by