Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Birdsall, 568 P.2d 419.

41 citing documents.

Allen v. Sanders ex rel. County of Maricopa 372 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Juan Carlos Vicente Sanchez v. Hon. ainley/state of Arizona 321 P.3d 415 Ariz. 2014
Juan Carlos Vicente Sanchez v. Hon. ainley/state of Arizona 321 P.3d 415 Ariz. 2014
this Court held that a prior conviction is not a “public offense” but rather something that enhances punishment.
State Ex Rel. Bowers v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. Bowers v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Burge 804 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1990
State v. Burge 804 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1990
State v. Dykes 789 P.2d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Dykes 789 P.2d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Littles 749 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1988
State v. Littles 749 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1988
State v. Wilson 730 P.2d 836 Ariz. 1986
State v. Wilson 730 P.2d 836 Ariz. 1986
§ 13-604(B), (I), (K); Rule 13.5(a), Ariz.R.Crim.P., .
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
State v. Waggoner 697 P.2d 320 Ariz. 1985
State v. Waggoner 697 P.2d 320 Ariz. 1985
In order to establish some consistency in the statutory system for allegation of penalty enhancements, we believe, , that the prosecutor has total discretion whether to allege parole status before the twenty day time limit of Rule 16.1(b).
State v. Buchholz 678 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Buchholz 678 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Bernal 671 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1983
State v. Bernal 671 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1983
State v. Fowler 670 P.2d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Fowler 670 P.2d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Barrett 644 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1982
State v. Barrett 644 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1982
State v. Parker 624 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Parker 624 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Hadd 619 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Hadd 619 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
City of Tucson v. Arndt 611 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
City of Tucson v. Arndt 611 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
The time limits of the rule are specifically applicable to the addition of allegations of prior convictions, rule 13.5(a), , and if timely motion is made, the filing of an allegation of prior conviction is *609 solely within the discretion of the prosecutor.
State v. Cook 596 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1979
State v. Cook 596 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1979
State v. Kelly 597 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1979
State v. Kelly 597 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1979
State v. Binford 584 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Binford 584 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
One day after the jury returned its verdict in this case, , held that there was no such discretion with respect to amendments timely filed in accordance with Rule 16.1 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
State v. Jones 581 P.2d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Jones 581 P.2d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
the Supreme Court of Arizona considered an allegation of a prior conviction as an addendum to an indictment.
State v. Deddens, in and for County of Cochise 579 P.2d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Deddens, in and for County of Cochise 579 P.2d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
the court stated: “During the time period set forth in [Rule 13.5(a)] the filing of the allegation of prior conviction is solely within the discretion of the prosecutor.