Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Howland, 439 P.2d 821.

40 citing documents.

State v. Thomas 642 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Thomas 642 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
approved, Mileham v. Simmons, 588 F.2d 1279 (9th Cir. 1979); , overruled on other grounds
State v. Sanders 574 P.2d 1316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Overruled State v. Sanders 574 P.2d 1316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. O'NEILL 572 P.2d 1181 Ariz. 1977
State v. O'NEILL 572 P.2d 1181 Ariz. 1977
overruled on other grounds
State v. Maxwell 570 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Maxwell 570 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Guthrie 532 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1975
State v. Guthrie 532 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1975
We have consistently held that a sentence within the statutory limits, as in the instant case, “is not cruel and unusual punishment where the statute fixing punishment is not unconstitutional.” at 256 , at 827 (1968), overruled on other grounds
Mileham v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles 520 P.2d 840 Ariz. 1974
Mileham v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles 520 P.2d 840 Ariz. 1974
overruled on other grounds
State v. Rice 516 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1973
State v. Rice 516 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1973
Foggy v. Eyman 516 P.2d 321 Ariz. 1973
Foggy v. Eyman 516 P.2d 321 Ariz. 1973
State v. Gordon 507 P.2d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Gordon 507 P.2d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Greenlee 505 P.2d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Greenlee 505 P.2d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Church 504 P.2d 940 Ariz. 1973
State v. Church 504 P.2d 940 Ariz. 1973
Foggy v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles 501 P.2d 942 Ariz. 1972
Foggy v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles 501 P.2d 942 Ariz. 1972
Witt v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 500 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Witt v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 500 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
State v. Burchett 484 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1971
State v. Burchett 484 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1971
State v. Kennedy 472 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1970
State v. Kennedy 472 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1970
we held: “In determining a proper sentence the court should consider the purpose of the sentence and the objectives sought to be attained.
State Ex Rel. Ariz. St. Bd. of P. & P. v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 467 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State Ex Rel. Ariz. St. Bd. of P. & P. v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 467 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Linsner 467 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1970
State v. Linsner 467 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1970
State v. Crow 457 P.2d 256 Ariz. 1969
State v. Crow 457 P.2d 256 Ariz. 1969
we held that in a case where a defendant who received a sentence of not less than twenty-five years to life in a penitentiary, and a second sentence for twenty-five years to life to run consecutively, the second sentence had no definite starting date, and therefore, under § 13-1652, A.R.S., would have
State v. Matthews 454 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1969
State v. Matthews 454 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1969
State v. Smith 446 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1968
State v. Smith 446 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1968