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. Maberry, 380 P.2d 604.

57 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Susan Irene Hernandez 295 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Susan Irene Hernandez 295 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    P.2d 9 (1973), (alteration added).
  • State v. Young 569 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Young 569 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1977
    State v. Deringer, 20 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Parle 521 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Parle 521 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Rice 516 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Rice 516 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Deringer 510 P.2d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Deringer 510 P.2d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Moreno 508 P.2d 730 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Moreno 508 P.2d 730 Ariz. 1973
    We have held that in determining what sentence a defendant should receive “the trial judge is, in most instances, better able than we to evaluate him and to determine what is necessary to rehabilitate him to constructive activity.”
  • State v. Crumley 492 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • State v. Crumley 492 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • State v. Smith 484 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Smith 484 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Molina 477 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Molina 477 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Linsner 467 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Linsner 467 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1970
    Such sentence shall be enforced by the court from which the appeal was taken.” , , 606: “Because a defendant-appears in person before the trial judge, the trial judge is, in most instances, better able than we .to evaluate him and to determine what is necessary to rehabilitate him to constructive activity.
  • State v. Small 464 P.2d 955 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Small 464 P.2d 955 Ariz. 1970
    : “Because a defendant appears in person before the trial judge, the trial judge is, in most instances, better able than we to evaluate him and to determine what is necessary to rehabilitate him to constructive activity.
  • State v. Jennings 448 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Jennings 448 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. Williamson 448 P.2d 65 Ariz. 1968
  • State v. Williamson 448 P.2d 65 Ariz. 1968
    State v. Jennings, [1968], , ; , .
  • State v. Olbekson 441 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Olbekson 441 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Amey 436 P.2d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Amey 436 P.2d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
    and stated, “If such bargaining did in fact take place it shows only that defendant was willing to seek the mercy of the court”.
  • State v. Arce 431 P.2d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Application of Buccheri 431 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • Application of Buccheri 431 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
  • 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. Cortez 408 P.2d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Cortez 408 P.2d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    the Supreme Court stated: “Because a defendant appears in person before the trial judge, the trial *307 judge is, in most instances, better able than we to evaluate him and to determine what is necessary to rehabilitate him to constructive activity.
  • 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
    : “Because a defendant appears in person before the trial judge, the trial judge is, in most instances, better able than we to evaluate him and to determine what .is necessary to rehabilitate him to constructive activity.
  • State v. Sowards 406 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Sowards 406 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1965
    : “Because a defendant appears in person before the trial judge, the trial judge is, in most instances, better able than we to evaluate him and to determine what is necessary to rehabilitate him to constructive activity.
  • State v. Morris 401 P.2d 147 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Morris 401 P.2d 147 Ariz. 1965
  • 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
    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. Graninger 393 P.2d 266 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Graninger 393 P.2d 266 Ariz. 1964
    606: “Because a defendant appears in person before the trial judge, the trial judge is, in most instances, better able than we to evaluate him and to determine what is necessary to rehabilitate him to constructive activity.
  • 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