Cited by

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

75 citing documents.

State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
If so, then ordinarily the court should find that the defendant committed multiple acts We therefore “foeus[] on the ‘facts of the transaction’ to determine if the defendant committed a single act.” , quoting Gordon, 161 Ariz. at 313 n. 5, 778 P.2d at 1209 n. 5.
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
as ‘whether [the purported lesser included offense] is, by its very nature, always a constituent part of the greater offense or whether the charging document describes the lesser offense even though it does not always make up a constituent part of the greater offense.’” (emphasis omitted)
State v. Price 183 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Price 183 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
n. 2 , , 1153 n. 2 (App.2002).
State of Arizona v. Mikal Omar Rasul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Mikal Omar Rasul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
§ 13-116, which bars “consecutive sentences for a single act,” § 13-604(M) “recogniz[es] that separate crimes can be committed on the ‘same occasion.’” (Jacobson, J., dissenting).
In Re Jerry C. 151 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Jerry C. 151 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Urquidez 138 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Urquidez 138 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
In Re Jeremiah T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
In Re Jeremiah T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
hat commission of the greater offense always result in commission of the lesser offense.” 3 In applying the elements test, “we focus on the elements of each provision”
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
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
If not, they are the same offense and double jeopardy bars successive prosecutions.”); (“Distinct statutory provisions constitute the same offense if they are comprised of the same elements.”).
State v. Keith 122 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Keith 122 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Montoya 65 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Montoya 65 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
bars multiple punishments for the same offense.” ¶ 8 , ( ¶ 5 , ).
State v. Sepahi 61 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Sepahi 61 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Samano; , (court reviews de novo whether consecutive sentences are permissible under § 13-116); , (same).