Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Pickard, 462 P.2d 87.
- State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
State v. Cooper
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶6 “Where a sentence is within the permissible statutory limits, it will not be modified or reduced on appeal unless it clearly appears excessive under the circumstances.” ( 462, P.2d 87, 89 (1970)).
- State v. Gillies 691 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1984
-
State v. Gillies
691 P.2d 655
Ariz. 1984
“Where a sentence is within the permissible statutory limits, it will not be modified or reduced on appeal unless it clearly appears excessive under the circumstances.”
- State v. Ferreira 627 P.2d 681 Ariz. 1981
- State v. Ferreira 627 P.2d 681 Ariz. 1981
- State v. Neese 616 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- State v. Neese 616 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- State v. Becerill 606 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- State v. Becerill 606 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- State v. Elzie 604 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- State v. Elzie 604 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- State v. Cagle 603 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- State v. Cagle 603 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- State v. Jerousek 590 P.2d 1366 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Jerousek 590 P.2d 1366 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Patton 586 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1978
- State v. Patton 586 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1978
- State v. Lambert 520 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Lambert 520 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1974
- State v. McIntyre 489 P.2d 1195 Ariz. 1971
- State v. McIntyre 489 P.2d 1195 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Burns 488 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
-
State v. Burns
488 P.2d 998
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Further, because appellant was on probation for a violation of the federal marijuana laws at the time of his arrest we believe that the sentence of eighteen months to two years of the eighth amendment proscription of was not excessive under the circumstances
- State v. Miguel 485 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- State v. Miguel 485 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- State v. Padilla 474 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Padilla 474 P.2d 821 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Soders 471 P.2d 275 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Soders 471 P.2d 275 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Daugherty 470 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
-
State v. Daugherty
470 P.2d 686
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
the court pointed out that before a defendant is entitled to a new trial it is necessary to show that there was, in fact, a conflict of interest, that by virtue of that conflict his own case was in some way prejudiced and that the question was raised before the trial court so that the court had a