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. Quintana, 376 P.2d 773.

77 citing documents.

  • State v. Foggy 420 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Martin 412 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Martin 412 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Hardin 406 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Hardin 406 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1965
    is dispositive of this contention: “This argument goes to the weight of the evidence rather than its sufficiency, and may not be properly considered on appeal.
  • State v. Carpenter 405 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • State v. Carpenter 405 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • State v. Logan 403 P.2d 279 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Wallace 403 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Logan 403 P.2d 279 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Wallace 403 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Sparks 400 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Sparks 400 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1965
    We have also held that the trial judge in setting the sentence “ * * * should consider not only the circumstances of the offense charged but also the moral character and past *361 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. Louden 400 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Louden 400 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    B. *124 Our Supreme Court has upheld consecutive sentences of 9 to 10 years on first count of first degree Burglary, and 5 to 6 years on second count of first degree Burglary where the defendant had one prior felony conviction and a violation of parole, , a sentence 7 to 9 years on grand theft where the defendant had two prior felony convictions, , and 10 to 12 years on an offense involving narcotics when there was no prior conviction.
  • State v. Vineyard 392 P.2d 30 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Vineyard 392 P.2d 30 Ariz. 1964
    State v. Castaño, supra.
  • 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
    We said, at 312 , at 776: *4 “We have repeatedly held that 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 pun
  • State v. Caldera 385 P.2d 207 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Caldera 385 P.2d 207 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Maberry 380 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1963
  • State v. Maberry 380 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1963
    State v. Douglas, supra.