Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Siddle, 47 P.3d 1150.

75 citing documents.

State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Termini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Quijada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Quijada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Jardines v. Hon. ryan-touhill/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Jardines v. Hon. ryan-touhill/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
However, “[w]hether double jeopardy bars retrial is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Moody, 208 Ariz. at 437, ¶ 18 ( ¶ 7 (App. 2002)).
State of Arizona v. Bobby Ray Carter Jr 469 P.3d 449 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Bobby Ray Carter Jr 469 P.3d 449 Ariz. 2020
§ 13-4036, we vacate Carter’s convictions and sentences for count five, for the theft of the SUV, and count 6 In State v. Siddle, the court of appeals stated, “[w]ith the exception of possession of drug paraphernalia, the drug offenses here are greater offenses than the weapons offense by reason of felony classification.” ¶ 11 (App. 2002).
State v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
V; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 10; ¶¶ 7, 8 (App. 2002); ¶ 6 (App. 2000).
State v. Koryor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Koryor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Eisenmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Eisenmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“Distinct statutory provisions constitute the same offense if they are comprised of the same elements.” ¶ 10 (App. 2002).
State v. Carter 429 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Carter 429 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
court from prescribing greater punishment than the legislature intended"); State v. Siddle , , ¶ 9, , 1154 (App. 2002) (same).
State v. Figueroa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Figueroa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Barrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Barrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 10 (App. 2006) (the trial court was not required to impose concurrent sentences “[b]ecause two of the three Gordon factors weigh in favor of viewing the two crimes as multiple acts”); ¶ 18 (App. 2002) (consecutive sentences were permissible because two factors strongly suggested the defendant committed multiple acts).
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
“We review de novo whether double jeopardy applies.” ¶ 15 (App. 2015) ( ¶ 8 (App. 2002)).
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“We review de novo whether consecutive sentences are permissible under § 13-116.” ¶ 16
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Michael Anthony Salcido 362 P.3d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Anthony Salcido 362 P.3d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
7 STATE v. SALCIDO Opinion of the Court at 1281; n.2, n.2 (App. 2002).
State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
n.2, ¶ 7 (App. 2002) ().
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
“The Double Jeopardy Clause bars a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction or acquittal and bars multiple punishments for the same offense.” ¶ 8
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 18, this court applied the three Gordon factors and determined that consecutive sentences for felony drug charges and misconduct involving weapons under A.R.S.
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, ).
Juvan v. Hon. eppich/mesa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Juvan v. Hon. eppich/mesa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State v. Williams 302 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. McDonagh 304 P.3d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. McDonagh 304 P.3d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
§ 13-116, this court applies the identical elements test, “focus[ing] on the facts of the transaction.” ¶ 17 , (citation omitted).
State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by