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. Ballez, 427 P.2d 125.

40 citing documents.

  • State v. Braidick 295 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Braidick 295 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Jones 916 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Jones 916 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    1598 , 39 L.Ed.2d 892 (1974)
  • State v. Garcia 787 P.2d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Garcia 787 P.2d 139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    Appellant admits, however, that the statute comes from the California Penal Code, , and California courts have held that the imposition of prison disciplinary measures do not bar a subsequent criminal prosecution for the same conduct.
  • State v. Sotomayor 736 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Sotomayor 736 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Zamora 559 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Zamora 559 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    296 , 4 L.Ed.2d 241 ), in construing California Penal Code § 654 from which our statute was taken, , concluded that while there may be an initial conviction for both crimes only one may be punished.
  • State v. Castro 554 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Castro 554 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Cassius 515 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. Cassius 515 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. Scarborough 514 P.2d 997 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Scarborough 514 P.2d 997 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Howes 508 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Howes 508 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Williams 499 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Williams 499 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Lippi 498 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Lippi 498 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Stielow 484 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Stielow 484 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of guilt as to one of the offenses which had been committed by the single act.
  • State v. Mendoza 481 P.2d 844 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Mendoza 481 P.2d 844 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Mitchell 478 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Mitchell 478 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1970
    we held: “On appeal the defendant contends that his conviction for both robbery and grand theft from the person violates A.R.S.
  • State v. Andrews 476 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Andrews 476 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1970
    Defendant Andrews also contends that the evidence shows a , .
  • State v. Parra 459 P.2d 344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Parra 459 P.2d 344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    (burglary and rape) , (statutory rape and lewd and lascivious acts) *430 , ; (burglary and theft) , (robbery and grand theft) , , [ 53 A.L.R.2d 619 ] (1955); (burglary and conspiring to commit burglary) , (fellatio and lewd and lascivious conduct based on different acts) State v. Payne, 7 Ariz.A
  • State v. French 453 P.2d 505 Ariz. 1969
  • State v. French 453 P.2d 505 Ariz. 1969
    An acquittal or conviction and sentence under either one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other.” .
  • State v. Robinson 433 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Robinson 433 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Arce 431 P.2d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Arce 431 P.2d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    Section 13-1641 , is applicable.
  • State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Phillips 430 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1967