Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Castano, 360 P.2d 479.

43 citing documents.

State v. Jensen 970 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Jensen 970 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(fact that others allegedly less worthy than defendant received lesser punishment does not violate equal protection).
State v. Neese 616 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Neese 616 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Stanley 597 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Stanley 597 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
When a trial judge has discretion as to the limits of the sentence, “he should consider not only the circumstances of the offense charged but also the moral character and past conduct of the defendant himself in order that he may grade the punishment in accordance with the general character of both the offense and of the party convicted.”
State v. Ethington 592 P.2d 768 Ariz. 1979
State v. Patton 586 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1978
State v. Patton 586 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1978
State v. Fischer 498 P.2d 147 Ariz. 1972
State v. Fischer 498 P.2d 147 Ariz. 1972
State v. Hanley 493 P.2d 1201 Ariz. 1972
State v. Hanley 493 P.2d 1201 Ariz. 1972
: “Undoubtedly the trial court took into consideration among other factors, defendant’s lack of prior felony convictions, his criminal propensity, namely, his sale of narcotics the day before the offense charged, the fact that the possession to which defendant pleaded guilty also involved a sale of narcotics (one of $20 worth of heroin), and that he was a peddler not an addict.”
State v. Fierro 416 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1966
State v. Fierro 416 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1966
in which'we said: “Where a discretion is vested in the trial judge’as to the limits of the sentence, he should consider not only the circumstances of the offense charged but also the moral character and past conduct of the defendant himself in order that he may grade the punishment in accordance with
State v. Cortez 408 P.2d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Cortez 408 P.2d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Anders, 2 Ariz.App.
State v. Andress 406 P.2d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Andress 406 P.2d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Sowards, 98 Ariz. -, , filed September 24, 1965
State v. Anders 406 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Anders 406 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Louden, 1 Ariz.App.
State v. Morris 401 P.2d 147 Ariz. 1965
State v. Morris 401 P.2d 147 Ariz. 1965
This court held, , : “ * * * it is a cardinal principle that the penalty upon conviction of a crime is, within the limits 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 of discretion.
State v. Louden 400 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Louden 400 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Vineyard 392 P.2d 30 Ariz. 1964
State v. Vineyard 392 P.2d 30 Ariz. 1964
State v. King 391 P.2d 598 Ariz. 1964
State v. King 391 P.2d 598 Ariz. 1964
State v. Salinas 386 P.2d 790 Ariz. 1963
State v. Salinas 386 P.2d 790 Ariz. 1963
State v. Rubio, Ariz., ; , ; , .
State v. Rubio 385 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1963
State v. Rubio 385 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1963
State v. Buckmaster 383 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1963
State v. Buckmaster 383 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1963
“[H]e should consider not only the circumstances of the offense charged but also the moral character and past conduct of the defendant himself in order that he may grade the punishment in accordance [therewith].”
State v. Maberry 380 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1963
State v. Maberry 380 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1963
State v. Quintana 376 P.2d 773 Ariz. 1962
State v. Quintana 376 P.2d 773 Ariz. 1962
State v. Killian 370 P.2d 287 Ariz. 1962
State v. Killian 370 P.2d 287 Ariz. 1962
*142 , , in which this court said: “Defendant contended that the sentence should be modified by this court under A.R.S.
State v. Smith 369 P.2d 901 Ariz. 1962
State v. Smith 369 P.2d 901 Ariz. 1962