Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Quintana, 376 P.2d 773.

77 citing documents.

Nancy Bourke v. Roger H. Contreras 556 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Nancy Bourke v. Roger H. Contreras 556 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Although a trial court nonetheless has discretion to consider an untimely challenge for cause, by the time a judge has heard evidence or decided the ultimate issues in dispute, “it is too late to disqualify him on the ground of bias and prejudice.” Marsin, 78 Ariz. at 315
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See, e.g., State v. Cañez, ¶ 39, see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Vargas-Burgos 783 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Vargas-Burgos 783 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
(“Courts have power to impose sentences only as authorized by statute and within the limits set down by the legislature.”).
State v. Marquez 618 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1980
State v. Marquez 618 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1980
State v. Ethington 592 P.2d 768 Ariz. 1979
State v. Herrera 588 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1978
State v. Herrera 588 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1978
State v. O'NEILL 572 P.2d 1181 Ariz. 1977
State v. O'NEILL 572 P.2d 1181 Ariz. 1977
State v. Myers 570 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1977
State v. Myers 570 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1977
State v. Rowe 569 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1977
State v. Rowe 569 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1977
State v. Schlarp, 25 Ariz.App.
State v. Ohta 562 P.2d 369 Ariz. 1977
State v. Ohta 562 P.2d 369 Ariz. 1977
State v. Foggy 486 P.2d 789 Ariz. 1971
State v. Foggy 486 P.2d 789 Ariz. 1971
State v. Smith 484 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1971
State v. Smith 484 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1971
State v. Hughes 475 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Hughes 475 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Bustamante 462 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Bustamante 462 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Matthews 454 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1969
State v. Matthews 454 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1969
this Court said: “ * * * 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 of discretion.
State v. Thomas 454 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1969
State v. Thomas 454 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1969
It is not our task to weigh the evidence, , nor to choose between the contradictory versions, .
State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
State v. Roche 451 P.2d 605 Ariz. 1969
State v. Roche 451 P.2d 605 Ariz. 1969
State v. Phillips, supra.
State v. Nelson 448 P.2d 402 Ariz. 1968
State v. Williamson 448 P.2d 65 Ariz. 1968
State v. Nelson 448 P.2d 402 Ariz. 1968
we said: “[9] Sections 13-1642 and 13-1643, A.R.
State v. Williamson 448 P.2d 65 Ariz. 1968
State v. Norgard 442 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1968
State v. Norgard 442 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1968
State v. Hernandez 437 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Hernandez 437 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
State v. Neil 419 P.2d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Neil 419 P.2d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
and therefore we urge that the Assignment Judge of the Superior Court, and Judge Garrett, on his own motion, transfer the case to another division of the Superior Court.” (Emphasis added) The trial judge ruled that because he had received evidence in the prior trial “ * * which is to be used and weighed in deciding the ultimate issues * * * ” ( , ), there was no peremptory right remaining in the defendant to insist upon a change of trial judge.
State v. Foggy 420 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1966