Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. French, 453 P.2d 505.

26 citing documents.

State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Robles 623 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Robles 623 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Arnold 565 P.2d 1282 Ariz. 1977
State v. Arnold 565 P.2d 1282 Ariz. 1977
State v. Ormsby 532 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Ormsby 532 P.2d 866 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
However, , , the court indicated: “[Wjhere the crimes do not have identical components and their elements are different, they do not fall within the prohibition of A.R.S.
State v. Lemon 521 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1974
State v. Lemon 521 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1974
State v. Jackson 499 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Jackson 499 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
1 Moreover, by entering a plea of guilty to the charge the defendant waived any question in regard to his right to a speedy trial.
State v. Schwartz 484 P.2d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Schwartz 484 P.2d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
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
State v. Mendoza 481 P.2d 844 Ariz. 1971
State v. Mendoza 481 P.2d 844 Ariz. 1971
: “The elements constituting robbery and grand theft — auto, are not entirely different, nor may robbery occur without the taking of personal property.
State v. Rhymes 480 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1971
State v. Rhymes 480 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1971
State v. Mitchell 478 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1970
State v. Mitchell 478 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1970
wherein defendant was charged with both robbery and grand theft, in which we said: “ , that convictions based on robbery and grand theft from the person violated the foregoing *495 statute when based on a single definite act.
State v. Kidwell 475 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1970
State v. Kidwell 475 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1970
State v. French, 104 Ariz. *260 359
State v. Holmes 472 P.2d 71 Ariz. 1970
State v. Holmes 472 P.2d 71 Ariz. 1970