Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Resendis-Felix, 100 P.3d 457.

28 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Renee Sue Ruggiero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Renee Sue Ruggiero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
§ 13-702(C)(4); (defendant “did not admit any of the aggravating factors” the trial court found, including presence of an accomplice, even though record reflected that defendant and an accomplice had stolen victim’s vehicle and had assaulted him).
State v. Brown 115 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Brown 115 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
n. 10 , , 463 n. 10 (App.2004), quoting Rule 31.25 cmt., Ariz. R.Crim.
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
State of Arizona v. Matthew Erich Manzanedo 110 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Matthew Erich Manzanedo 110 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
§ 13-701 is the “‘statutory maximum’” for purposes of Blakely), quoting Blakely, ___ U.S. at ___, 124 S. Ct. at 2537; n.1, n.1 (App. 2004).
State v. Cleere 109 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Cleere 109 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
-14 (App.2004); n. 1 , , 459 n. 1 (App.2004).
State v. Estrada 108 P.3d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Estrada 108 P.3d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 4 n. 1, , 459 n. 1 (App.2004) (“It [] appears certain that Blakely applies [] to Arizona’s general noncapital sentencing statutes.”) (citing Brown (McMullen), 209 Ariz. at 203, ¶ 12, 99 P.3d at 18 ).
State v. Pitre 107 P.3d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Pitre 107 P.3d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Chiappetta 107 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Chiappetta 107 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(addressing alleged Blakely error even though "[n]either party requested that a jury determine the aggravators beyond a reasonable doubt"); State v. Alire, (any Blakely error that results in illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error not waived by failure to raise in trial court or in opening brief); , (same).
State v. Alire 105 P.3d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Alire 105 P.3d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 6 , State v. Oaks, No. 2 CA-CR XXXX-XXXX, ___ Ariz. ___, ___, ¶ 21, ¶ 21 , 2004 WL 2955944 , at *5 (Ariz.App.
State of Arizona v. Derek Scott Oaks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Derek Scott Oaks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
See State v. Resendis-Felix, ___ Ariz. ___, ¶ 5, supp. op., No. 2 CA-CR 2003-0114-PR (Ct. App. Dec.
State v. Timmons 103 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Timmons 103 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶¶ 8-10 , ¶¶ 8-10 (App.2004) 10 ; ¶ 21 , ¶ 21 (App.2004)