Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hannah, 617 P.2d 527.

144 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
For instance, previously, under [State v.] Hannah, [ P.2d 527 (1980),] when a defendant was convicted of three felony counts that were tried together, the state could allege two of the convictions as priors for the other conviction, thus subjecting a defendant who came to court without a prior co
State v. Thomas 175 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Thomas 175 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 19 However, within months, , the difference between § 13-604 and “true recidivist statutes.” In Hannah , the defendant committed four forgeries in early November 1978.
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
charge” 8 P.2d 527 (1980).
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hauser 105 P.3d 1158 Ariz. 2005
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hauser 105 P.3d 1158 Ariz. 2005
These changes to the measurement calculus were designed to eliminate so-called “Hannah priors.” P.2d 527 (1980) (holding that under prior version of statute sequence of convictions, rather than offenses, determined eligibility for enhancement); State ex rel.
State of Arizona v. Virginia L. Ofstedahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Virginia L. Ofstedahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Indeed, the clear lesson from Thompson is that § 13-702.02 is the applicable sentencing statute for cases such as Ofstedahl’s, in which multiple prosecutions 1 P.2d 527 (1980).
State v. Christian 66 P.3d 1241 Ariz. 2003
State v. Christian 66 P.3d 1241 Ariz. 2003
a person who is convicted of two or more Hannah, P.2d 527 (1980).
State v. Thompson 27 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2001
State v. Thompson 27 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2001
¶ 8 , when it amended A.R.S.
State v. Thompson 7 P.3d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Thompson 7 P.3d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
This use of section 13-604 , which held that section 13-604 could be used to enhance a sentence even if the alleged historical prior felony conviction occurred subsequent to defendant’s commission of the present offense.
State v. Cornish 968 P.2d 606 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Cornish 968 P.2d 606 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
-82 , -41 (1984); but see State v. Allison, 143 Or.App.
State v. Brown 952 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Brown 952 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
(“So long as the defendant was convicted of the other offense before the conviction in the principal offense, the enhanced punishment provisions of § 13-604(B) are applicable.”).
Kizzar v. Superior Court 953 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Kizzar v. Superior Court 953 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
[, ] (1980), is applicable here.” The court also denied a motion for reconsideration but granted a motion for stay pending the outcome of this special action.
State v. Pecina 908 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Pecina 908 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Pursuant to section 13-604(H) and State v. Han *240 nah, , the state charged all counts as prior convictions to each other.
State v. Walker 914 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Walker 914 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Tapp argues that the statute is void for vagueness because it is susceptible to a
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
Walden first argues that his convictions for crimes consolidated for trial purposes with the murder charge, , cannot be used to satisfy A.R.S.
State v. Rosas 904 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Rosas 904 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Verdugo 901 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Verdugo 901 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
The state alleged the dangerous nature of the murder charge
State v. Averyt 876 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Averyt 876 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Paredes 887 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Paredes 887 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Matter of Beren 874 P.2d 320 Ariz. 1994
Matter of Beren 874 P.2d 320 Ariz. 1994
we held that successive but separate crimes, although consolidated in a single trial, may be considered prior convictions for sentencing enhancement purposes.
State v. Delgado 848 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Delgado 848 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Garcia 840 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Garcia 840 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
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. West 845 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. West 845 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Ellison 819 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Ellison 819 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Campa 814 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1991
State v. Malone 830 P.2d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991