DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bigelow, 258 P.2d 409.

45 citing documents.

  • Khristina Lyn Shifflette v. Hon. Marner 534 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
  • Khristina Lyn Shifflette v. Hon. Marner 534 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
    At one time, Arizona’s sentencing scheme only permitted a court to suspend the imposition of sentence and did not permit it to suspend the execution of sentence by allowing a term of incarceration to be “interrupted” or “intermittent.” -19 (1953) (distinguishing between court suspending the imposition of sentence and improperly suspending the execution of sentence).
  • State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Bowsher 242 P.3d 1055 Ariz. 2010
  • State v. Bowsher 242 P.3d 1055 Ariz. 2010
  • Schoenberger v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ETC. 606 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1980
  • Schoenberger v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ETC. 606 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Smith 576 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Smith 576 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Carter 570 P.2d 763 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Carter 570 P.2d 763 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Weigel 554 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Weigel 554 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    It deals with the power of the court upon the suspension of imposition of sentence, a matter in which the court has no inherent power, , and contains no provision for consecutive sentences in the county jail as a condition of probation.
  • State v. Pitts 548 P.2d 1202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Pitts 548 P.2d 1202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    P.2d 409 (1953); , 293 P. 23 (1930); , 246 P. 550 (1926).
  • State v. Pakula 547 P.2d 476 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Pakula 547 P.2d 476 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Pakula 532 P.2d 161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Green 492 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • State v. Green 492 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • State v. Jackson 489 P.2d 8 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Jackson 489 P.2d 8 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Cutting 488 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Cutting 488 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Walter 469 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Walter 469 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    § 13-1657, State v. *284 Bigelow, , , 39 A.L.R.2d 979 (1953), since such power did not exist at common law
  • State v. Gray 459 P.2d 82 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Gray 459 P.2d 82 Ariz. 1969
    A. In determining whether or not probation is warranted in a particular case, the judge may take into account “any circumstances in mitigation of the punishment that might exist.” , , 39 A.L.R.2d 979 (1953).
  • State v. Oliver 452 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Oliver 452 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    39 A.L.R.2d 979 (1953); , cert.
  • Application of Hathcock 450 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Application of Hathcock 450 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    39 A.L.R.2d 979 (1953), holding that, after a convicted person has “ * * * entered upon the execution of a valid sentence * * the court has “ * * * no jurisdiction * * * ” to amend the sentence ( , ).
  • State v. Van Meter 440 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Van Meter 440 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    39 A.L.R.2d 979 (1953); , 293 P. 23 (1930); , 246 P. 550 (1926); State v. Washington, 5 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Alford 402 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Alford 402 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1965
    See, , ; , ; and State v. Bigelow, [ , , 39 A.L.R.2d 979 .]” In State v. Fenton, supra, as here, this court was called upon to review a death sentence imposed after a plea of guilty.
  • Campbell v. Thurman 393 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1964
  • Campbell v. Thurman 393 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1964
    39 A.L.R.2d 979 , affirmed the power of the Superior Court to use the common law definition of a crime where there is a statute making the act a crime in Arizona, and holds that the same principle applies to “adjective law, administrative in character.” The court made no reference to A.R.S.
  • State v. Robles 351 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1960
  • State v. Robles 351 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1960
  • State v. Douglas 349 P.2d 622 Ariz. 1960
  • State v. Douglas 349 P.2d 622 Ariz. 1960
    163 P. 264 ; , , 39 A.L.R.2d 979 ; , ; , .
  • Peterson v. Flood 326 P.2d 845 Ariz. 1958
  • Peterson v. Flood 326 P.2d 845 Ariz. 1958
    39 A.L.R.2d 979 ; , 293 P. 23 .