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. Hannah, 617 P.2d 527.

144 citing documents.

  • State v. Malone 830 P.2d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Distinguished State v. Campa 814 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1991
    In doing so, , which held that an earlier conviction could be used to enhance a defendant’s sentence under § 13-604, even though the enhancing offense occurred after the offense being enhanced.
  • State v. Williams 819 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Williams 819 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. McCuin 808 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. McCuin 808 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Thomas 799 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Thomas 799 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    The state amended the information pursuant to Rule 13.5 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and State v. Hannah, 126 Ariz. *574 575 , to allege any conviction arising from Counts I through IV in CR 89-05261 as a prior or repetitive conviction.
  • State v. Marty 801 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Marty 801 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Shearer 793 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Shearer 793 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    (a prior felony conviction may be used for enhancement purposes if the prior conviction is obtained after the commission of the principal offense).
  • State v. Maupin 801 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Maupin 801 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Shulark 784 P.2d 688 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Shulark 784 P.2d 688 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. MacGillivray 785 P.2d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. MacGillivray 785 P.2d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    § 13-604(H) P.2d 527 (1980), that defendant’s contemporaneous convictions on Counts II through XI could be used collectively as one prior conviction for enhancement of the sentence on the theft conviction.
  • State v. Watkins 776 P.2d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Watkins 776 P.2d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Taylor 773 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Taylor 773 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1989
  • State ex rel. McDougall v. Municipal Court 772 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State ex rel. McDougall v. Municipal Court 772 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Lee 774 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Lee 774 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    Had the state alleged count five as a , defendant would have faced up to thirty-three years imprisonment on each of the first four counts and twenty-two years on count five.
  • State v. Jobe 757 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Jobe 757 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Moore 754 P.2d 293 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Moore 754 P.2d 293 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Horning 761 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Horning 761 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Sammons 749 P.2d 1372 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Sammons 749 P.2d 1372 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Walters 748 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Walters 748 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    The two counts were consolidated for trial and the state alleged that any conviction arising out of the aggravated assault in Cause No. CR-158502 would be a
  • State v. Driggs 745 P.2d 135 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Driggs 745 P.2d 135 Ariz. 1987
    applies to successive drunk driving offenses proscribed by A.R.S.
  • State v. Vild 746 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Vild 746 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    so that appellant was sentenced as a repetitive offender to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 7.5 years for conspiracy and 11 years for possession for sale.
  • State v. Henry 734 P.2d 93 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Henry 734 P.2d 93 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Stein 735 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Stein 735 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    § 13-604(H) , the trial court was clearly correct.
  • State v. Edwards 739 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Edwards 739 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Driggs 745 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Driggs 745 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    held that a prior felony conviction could be used for enhanced punishment pursuant to A.R.S.
  • State v. Devine 724 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Devine 724 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986