Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Miller v. Uhrick, 707 P.2d 309.

17 citing documents.

State v. Pacheco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“Convicted defendants have a due process right to a fair sentencing procedure which includes the right to be sentenced on the basis of accurate information.”); ¶ 18 (App. 2020) 1 The APD’s predisposition report on the second supplemental petition states that
In Re Delinquency of M.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
An abuse of discretion may be established if the court’s order is “characterized by capriciousness, arbitrariness or by failure to conduct an adequate investigation into facts necessary for an intelligent exercise of the court’s sentencing power.”
State v. Gosney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(recognizing a due process right to be sentenced on accurate information and holding that sentences based in part on false information must be set aside (citing United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 447 (1972); Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741 (1948))).
In Re Delinquency of C.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
A court abuses its discretion if its order is “characterized by capriciousness, arbitrariness or by failure to conduct an adequate investigation into facts necessary for an intelligent exercise of the court’s sentencing power.”
State v. Bilducia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“The sentencing process .
State of Arizona v. Darrel Peter Pandeli 394 P.3d 2 Ariz. 2017
¶75 The PCR court relied on United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446–47 (1972), for support that Pandeli’s due process rights were violated by Dr. Bayless’s testimony.
In Re Fernando R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
is characterized by capriciousness, arbitrariness or by failure to conduct an adequate investigation into facts necessary for an intelligent exercise of the court’s sentencing power.”
State v. Fell 115 P.3d 594 Ariz. 2005
(“An abuse of discretion in sentencing is characterized by capriciousness, arbitrariness or by failure to conduct an adequate investigation into facts necessary for an intelligent exercise of the court’s sentencing power.”).
State v. Wagner 976 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Our supreme court has held that “[cjonvicted defendants have a due process right to a fair sentencing procedure which includes the right to be sentenced on the basis of accurate information.”
State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
Our conclusion is based on the premise that the sentencing authority must conduct an adequate investigation into all facts necessary for an intelligent exercise of the court’s sentencing power, , and give careful consideration to all relevant information when deciding whether to impose the death penalty; see Richmond v. Cardwell, 450 F.Supp.
State v. House 821 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
While the fact that the trial court imposed sentence after it realized, at least to some extent, that it did not have before it all factors relevant to sentencing may amount to an abuse of the court’s sentencing discretion, , , this does not mean the sentence was imposed in an unlawful manner.
State v. Watton 793 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1990
142 , 4 L.Ed.2d 115 (1959)
State v. Taylor 764 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Should a restitution hearing be similarly provided upon request as a feature of defendant’s “right to be sentenced on the basis of accurate information?”
Dorn v. Robinson 762 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Dorn v. Robinson 762 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
The most recent Arizona decision on this topic is Division Two’s , approved
State v. Dogan 724 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Mount 719 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
1690, 1693-94 (1948); , , (1985).