Cited by

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

159 citing documents.

State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martinez 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. Neal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Neal 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. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hamilton 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. Cochran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
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. Cochran 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. Dawe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dawe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
DISCUSSION ¶5 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.” ¶ 2 (App. 2001).
State v. Hunsaker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hunsaker 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. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Amador-Creane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Amador-Creane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.” ¶ 2 (App. 2001).
State v. Valdez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Valdez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
DISCUSSION ¶4 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.” ¶ 2 (App. 2001).
State v. Puma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Puma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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).
Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Hogue 360 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Hogue 360 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
129 ¶21, ("Arguments raised for the first time at oral argument are waived.”).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 5, approved, P.3d 1134 (2001).
State v. Delgado-Paredes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Delgado-Paredes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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. Mendiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Mendiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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. Hassan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hassan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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. Olsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Olsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Estrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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. McLendon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. McLendon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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. Jurden 352 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jurden 352 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
2170, 2181-82 , 57 L.Ed.2d 43 (1978) (citations omitted); ¶ 5 , (“Whether a defendant can be punished for each victim of the crime of disorderly conduct is an issue of legislative intent.”); ¶ 8 , 23 R3d 668, 671 (App. 2001) (“Whether one or more offenses occurred here requires us to interpret [the statute].”).
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.” ¶ 2
State v. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.” ¶ 2
State v. Lendsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Lendsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.” ¶ 2