Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fenton, 341 P.2d 237.

46 citing documents.

Ah v. Super. Ct. in and for Mohave Cty. 911 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
A.H. v. Superior Court 911 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
A.H. v. Superior Court 911 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Ah v. Super. Ct. in and for Mohave Cty. 911 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Watton 793 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1990
State v. Watton 793 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1990
State v. Fenton, 86 Ariz. Ill, 119, cert.
State v. Kelly 595 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Kelly 595 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Garcia 542 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1975
State v. Garcia 542 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1975
State v. Fischer 498 P.2d 147 Ariz. 1972
State v. Fischer 498 P.2d 147 Ariz. 1972
State v. Molina 477 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1970
State v. Molina 477 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1970
State v. Matthews 454 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1969
State v. Matthews 454 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1969
State v. Boggs 441 P.2d 778 Ariz. 1968
State v. Boggs 441 P.2d 778 Ariz. 1968
State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
State v. Foggy 420 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1966
State v. Foggy 420 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1966
State v. Fierro 416 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1966
State v. Fierro 416 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1966
.” 89 Ariz. at 233 , 360 P.2d at 480 .
State v. Wallace 403 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1965
State v. Wallace 403 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1965
State v. Alford 402 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1965
State v. Alford 402 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1965
State v. Morris 401 P.2d 147 Ariz. 1965
State v. Morris 401 P.2d 147 Ariz. 1965
.” 89 Ariz. at 233 , 360 P.2d at 480 .
State v. Pill 400 P.2d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
State v. Pill 400 P.2d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Counsel cites State v. Fenton (1959) , cert, denied (1959) 361 U.S. 877 , 80 S.Ct.
State v. Rubio 385 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1963
State v. Rubio 385 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1963
and that the penalty upon conviction of a crime is, within the limitations of statute, entirely within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and will not be modified unless it clearly appears that the sentence imposed is excessive, resulting in an abuse
State v. Quintana 376 P.2d 773 Ariz. 1962
State v. Quintana 376 P.2d 773 Ariz. 1962
and that the-penalty upon conviction of a crime is, within the limitations of statute, entirely within the sound discretion of the trial judge,, and will not be modified unless it clearly appears that the sentence imposed is excessive, resulting in an abus
State v. McGee 370 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1962
State v. Killian 370 P.2d 287 Ariz. 1962
State v. Killian 370 P.2d 287 Ariz. 1962
.” The sentence of a defendant being within the discretion of the trial court, there is no requirement that a first offender be given a minimum sentence.
State v. McGee 370 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1962
State v. Robinson, supra
State v. Robinson 360 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1961
State v. Castano 360 P.2d 479 Ariz. 1961
State v. Castano 360 P.2d 479 Ariz. 1961
State v. Robinson 360 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1961
Unless the record shows that this discretion was abused, , *231 , or the decision is capricious or arbitrary, , , the sentence must remain.
State v. Douglas 349 P.2d 622 Ariz. 1960
State v. Douglas 349 P.2d 622 Ariz. 1960
See, , ; , ; and State v. Bigelow, supra.