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. Turrentine 730 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Turrentine 730 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Nosie 724 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Nosie 724 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    The State alleged that the kidnapping and attempted murder were dangerous offenses and alleged a prior Hannah conviction ( , ), based on a criminal charge pending against appellant in another case.
  • State v. Thompson 724 P.2d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Thompson 724 P.2d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    The state filed allegations of dangerousness
  • State v. Anderson 710 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Anderson 710 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Schneider 715 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Schneider 715 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    In this case the state filed an amendment to the indictment prior to trial charging, , that any conviction which arose from any of the theft counts would be prior convictions for sentencing purposes on each of the other theft counts.
  • State v. Risco 712 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Risco 712 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    In Risco’s case, the trial court imposed a mitigated sentence based on the fact that the crimes involved were nonviolent and the fact that, since the priors alleged were Hannah priors, , Risco had not been able to receive any probationary or parole services from the Department of Corrections between felonies.
  • State v. Chudy 706 P.2d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Chudy 706 P.2d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Bayliss 704 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Bayliss 704 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    Bayliss does not argue he was a spree offender, , and the evidence shows he was not.
  • State v. Perkins 699 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Perkins 699 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1985
    (this same comment cited with approval in dictum).
  • State v. Sands 700 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Sands 700 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    our supreme court said: “Subsection H excludes the ‘spree offender’ who commits more than one crime in a connected series of events ‘on the same occasion, ’ but includes successive but separate crimes even though the defendant could be convicted of both in a single trial.
  • State v. Superior Court in and for Maricopa 689 P.2d 539 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Superior Court in and for Maricopa 689 P.2d 539 Ariz. 1984
    § 13-604(H) , prior convictions need not precede the commission of the offense.
  • State v. Smith 687 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Smith 687 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Diaz 688 P.2d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Diaz 688 P.2d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • 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
    § 13-604(H) has been "reviewed and upheld on several occasions by the courts of this state
  • State v. Hunter 669 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Hunter 669 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    Prior to trial, the State filed an allegation of prior and/ , alleging “any convictions which arise from counts 1, 2 or 3 in CR 119068 ...
  • State v. Roylston 660 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Roylston 660 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Rodgers 655 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Rodgers 655 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Taylor 660 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Taylor 660 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Rybolt 650 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Rybolt 650 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Platt 637 P.2d 1073 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Platt 637 P.2d 1073 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Crumley 625 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Crumley 625 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
    The other issue, based on the date of the judgment of conviction of the prior offenses, has been determined adversely to appellant’s
  • Davis v. SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF PIMA 617 P.2d 520 Ariz. 1980
  • Davis v. SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF PIMA 617 P.2d 520 Ariz. 1980
    Lopez does not apply as the statute construed in Lopez is markedly different from the statute considered in the instant case.