Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Powers, 23 P.3d 668.

159 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. hon.gordon/owen Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. hon.gordon/owen Ariz. 2025
¶ 9 (App. 2001), and other out-of-state authorities, the court offered the following broad interpretation of the term “accident”: “when determining whether an accident resulted from a red-light violation, a court must consider an accident as a continuous event in which the traffic violation causes an event that r
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Quijada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Quijada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
–26 ¶¶ 5, 8 (App. 2001).
State v. Kelly 545 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Kelly 545 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 7 (App. 2008) ( ¶ 5 (App. 2001)).
State v. Hon gordon/owen 544 P.3d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Hon gordon/owen 544 P.3d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Thus, an “accident” is not necessarily synonymous with a “collision.” ¶15 Interpreting an “accident” as encompassing more than a single “collision” ¶ 9 (App. 2001).
State v. Dennis Hyde Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Dennis Hyde Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 13 (App. 2001) (stating that the objective behind the law prohibiting drivers from leaving the scene of a collision “is satisfied by allowing only a single charge for each accident scene regardless of the number of victims”).
State v. Rix 536 P.3d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Rix 536 P.3d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
–26, ¶¶ 5, 8 (App. 2001).
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State of Arizona v. Miguel Rios 502 P.3d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
State of Arizona v. Miguel Rios 502 P.3d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.”
State v. Chayrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Chayrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 16 (App. 2001) (choosing to vacate second conviction in double-jeopardy case); Braidick, 231 Ariz. at 361, ¶ 13 (same).
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.” ¶ 2 (App. 2001).
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Boozer , , ¶ 2, quoting State v. Powers , , ¶ 2
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 5 (App. 2001) (“Multiplicity occurs when an indictment charges a single offense in multiple counts .
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“We review de novo whether double jeopardy applies.” ¶ 5 (App. 2001).
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 7 (App. 2008) ( ¶ 5 (App. 2001), aff’d ).
State v. Mack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
sentence based upon it" (quotation omitted)); ¶ 16 (App. 2001).
State v. Gary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Gary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
The double jeopardy clauses of the Arizona and United States Constitutions provide the same basic protection and prohibit “multiple punishments for the same offense.” ¶ 5, aff’d, P.3d 1134 (2001).
State v. Deans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Deans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
DISCUSSION ¶10 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.” ¶ 2 (App. 2001).
State v. Cope 387 P.3d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cope 387 P.3d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 5 (App. 2001) (citing Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 497-98 (1984); ).
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
sections 12- 120.21.A.1, 13-4031, and -4033.A.1 (West 2016).2 DISCUSSION ¶12 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.” ¶ 2 (App. 2001).
State of Arizona v. Samkeita Jahveh Jurden 373 P.3d 543 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Samkeita Jahveh Jurden 373 P.3d 543 Ariz. 2016
See, ¶ 5, 1On appeal, Jurden raised article 2, section 10 of the Arizona Constitution, which also protects against double jeopardy, but did not separately argue that provision.
State v. Sagarnaga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Sagarnaga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.” ¶ 2 (App. 2001).
State v. Brennan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brennan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.” ¶ 2 (App. 2001).
State v. Pham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Pham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.” ¶ 2 (App. 2001).