Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Anderjeski v. City Court of City of Mesa, 663 P.2d 233.

35 citing documents.

Planned Parenthood v. Kristin mayes/hazelrigg Ariz. 2024
Planned Parenthood v. Kristin mayes/hazelrigg Ariz. 2024
.”); (“Although arising out of one act, the statutes describe two separate and distinct offenses.”); –08 (1968) (holding criminal statutes merely prohibiting the same conduct did not conflict where there was no positive repugnancy between the two laws); State v. O’Brien, 123 A
State v. Dudley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Dudley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Braxton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Braxton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ishak v. McClennen Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 388 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. James 372 P.3d 311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. James 372 P.3d 311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 28-1381.A.1 (impaired to the slightest degree) and § 28-1381.A.2 (BAC of .08 or more) without “offending the principles of double jeopardy.” ¶ 24 (App. 2014); -51 (1983) (interpreting the statutory predecessor to A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
-51, -35 (1983) (construing statutory predecessor to § 28-13819 and holding that each form of DUI represents a “separate and distinct offense[]”).
State v. McDonagh 304 P.3d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. McDonagh 304 P.3d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Rodriguez 7 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Rodriguez 7 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Garcia 943 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Garcia 943 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See, (“[I]n Arizona the clear legislative intent is not to cumulate punishment for one act.”).
Marzolf v. Superior Court 912 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Marzolf v. Superior Court 912 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
-51 , -35 (1983), the Arizona Supreme Court noted that: [i]t is possible to have less than 0.10 blood alcohol content and still be under the influence of intoxicating liquor____ On the other hand, a person may have over 0.10 per cent blood alcohol content and still not [be] impaired [or under] the
State ex rel. Hamilton v. Lopresti 787 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State ex rel. Hamilton v. Lopresti 787 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Sheaves 747 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Sheaves 747 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
§§ 28-692(A) and (B) and -692.02
State v. Superior Court of Pima County 721 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Superior Court of Pima County 721 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
for any person to drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle within this state while there is 0.10 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the person’s blood.” , the court held that a defendant who is charged under both subsections (A) and (B) is not placed in double jeopardy.
State v. Askren 710 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Askren 710 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
REFUSAL TO GIVE APPELLANT’S , appellant also argues that the trial court erred by refusing to give his instruction on impairment which stated, in part: However, if his consumption of alcohol does not cause him to be influenced in the ordinary and well-understood meaning of the term, he is not violating the law.
Fuenning v. Superior Court 680 P.2d 121 Ariz. 1983
Fuenning v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 680 P.2d 121 Ariz. 1983
Fuenning v. Superior Court 680 P.2d 121 Ariz. 1983
We recently held that subsections A and B of the new Arizona statute "describe two separate offenses ____ The two offenses are not the same in law or fact.”
Fuenning v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 680 P.2d 121 Ariz. 1983
State v. Thompson 674 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Thompson 674 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
: “ * * * It is possible to have less than 0.10 blood alcohol content and still be under the influence of intoxicating liquor.