Cited by

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

159 citing documents.

State v. Pelayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Pelayo 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. Erivez 341 P.3d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Harm 340 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Harm 340 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See State v. Siddle, 202 Ariz. 5 STATE v. HARM Opinion of the Court 512, 515, ¶ 8, ( ¶ 5, ).
State v. Erivez 341 P.3d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 16, (where defendant was charged and convicted of same offense twice, and convictions were therefore multiplicitous, court of appeals properly vacated one of defendant’s convictions).
State v. Costa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Costa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Javier Solis 338 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Javier Solis 338 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
bars multiple punishments for the same offense.’”
State v. Valenzuela-Valdez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Valenzuela-Valdez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Nardelli v. Metropolitan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Nardelli v. Metropolitan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶21, (issues raised for first time at oral argument are untimely and will not be considered).
State v. Mekhail Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Mekhail Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Conner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Conner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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 of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Williams 302 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Braidick 295 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Braidick 295 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State of Arizona v. Nelson E. Nottingham 289 P.3d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Nelson E. Nottingham 289 P.3d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
approved, P.3d 1134 (2001).
STATE EX REL. SMITH v. Reeves 250 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
STATE EX REL. SMITH v. Reeves 250 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
In State v. Powers (Powers I), ¶ 16 , the court of appeals had held that because there was only one accident scene, Powers could not be charged with more than one offense of leaving the scene of an accident regardless of how many persons were injured.
State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Boozer 212 P.3d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Boozer 212 P.3d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶ 2 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.” ¶ 2
Alejandro v. Harrison 219 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Alejandro v. Harrison 219 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
approved on other grouds
State v. Brown 177 P.3d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Brown 177 P.3d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
[and] raises the potential for multiple punishments, which implicates double jeopardy.” , aff'd
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-27, ¶¶ 10-12 , -72 (App.2001) (holding A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Francisco Lazaro Gonzalez, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Francisco Lazaro Gonzalez, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(“[A] primary purpose of the ex post facto clause [is] ‘to assure that legislative Acts give fair warning of their effect and permit individuals to rely on their meaning until explicitly changed.’”), quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 28-29, 101 S. Ct. 960, 964 (1981); (judicial expansion of statutory language can violate defendant’s due process right to fair warning of proscribed conduct); see also A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Christopher Cruz Cuevas 153 P.3d 414 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Christopher Cruz Cuevas 153 P.3d 414 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(“[W]e attempt to give unclear [statutory] language a sensible construction.”).
Lemke v. Rayes 141 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Lemke v. Rayes 141 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
*237 783, 127 L.Ed.2d 47 (1994); ¶ 5
State of Arizona v. Andrew James Raymond Burdick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Andrew James Raymond Burdick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
aff’d, P.3d 1134 (2001).
Merlina v. Jejna 90 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Merlina v. Jejna 90 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
(“Arguments raised for the first time at oral argument are waived.”).
State v. Montoya 65 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003