Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Benenati, 52 P.3d 804.

30 citing documents.

State v. Tapia-Munoz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Tapia-Munoz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 19 (App. 2001) (concluding that a defendant’s release status, for sentencing purposes, must be determined by a jury); –42, ¶ 22 (App. 2002) (vacating two-year sentencing enhancement because consideration of defendant’s release status was not decided by the jury).
State v. Trujillo 430 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Trujillo 430 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See State v. Kuntz , , ¶ 5, , 28 (App. 2004) ; see also State v. Benenati , , ¶ 7, , 806-07 (App. 2002).
State v. Large 321 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Large 321 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
201 Ariz. at 45, ¶¶ 17-19, 31 P.3d at 819 ; -41, ¶¶ 16-20 , -810 (App.2002).
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Stock 207 P.3d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Stock 207 P.3d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Stummer 171 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Criticized State v. Stummer 171 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 7 , (we ordinarily consider a decision from the other division persuasive unless we are persuaded that it is based on incorrect legal principles, or conditions have changed so as to render it inapplicable).
State v. Crawford 149 P.3d 753 Ariz. 2007
State v. Crawford 149 P.3d 753 Ariz. 2007
§ 13-604(S)); ¶¶ 24-26, (comparing Florida and Arizona robbery statutes to determine if prior Florida robbery convictions “constituted a prior felony conviction for sentencing purposes” under A.R.S.
State v. Johnson 111 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Johnson 111 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
at 2536 n. 5 (“‘[Ejvery fact which is legally essential to the punishment’ must be charged in the indictment and proved to a jury.”), quoting 1 J. Bishop, Criminal Procedure ch. 6, at 50-56 (2d ed. 1872); , (“[W]e choose to follow Apprendi’s logic, and Ring’s [v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct.
State of Arizona v. Mark Anthony Cons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Cons 94 P.3d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Mark Anthony Cons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
P.3d 804 (App. 2002) (agreeing with Gross and holding that release status adding two years to sentence as enhancement under § 13-604(R) must be determined by jury in light of Apprendi).
State v. Cons 94 P.3d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(agreeing with Gross and holding that release status adding two years to sentence as enhancement under § 13-604(R) must be determined by jury in light of Apprendi).
State v. Dewakuku 92 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Dewakuku 92 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Brown 70 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Brown 70 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
For example, , this court held that Apprendi requires a jury to determine a defendant’s release status for purposes of imposing the mandatory, two-year sentence enhancement under A.R.S.
Property Located at 6757 S. Burcham Ave. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Property Located at 6757 S. Burcham Ave. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002