Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Johnson, 111 P.3d 1038.

48 citing documents.

State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
§ 13-701(C); ¶ 10 (App. 2006) (“[T]he maximum punishment authorized by a jury verdict alone, without a finding of additional facts, is the presumptive term.”).
State v. Narayan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Narayan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶17 “Under Arizona’s noncapital sentencing statutes, the maximum punishment authorized by a jury verdict alone, without the finding of any additional facts, is the presumptive term.” ¶ 10 (App. 2005) (citations omitted).
State v. Swift Hawk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Swift Hawk Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Alvarez Bojorquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Alvarez Bojorquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 11 n.1 (App. 2005) (“[T]he trial court was not required to specify either aggravating factors or mitigating factors in imposing presumptive sentences .
State v. Mello Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Mello Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Meza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Meza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
The legality of a sentence, including “[w]hether the trial court applied the correct sentencing statute,” ¶ 12 (App. 2005), is a question of law, which we review de novo, ¶ 8 (App. 2005).
State v. Sanders Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Sanders Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
The legality of a sentence, including “[w]hether the trial court applied the correct sentencing statute,” ¶ 12 (App. 2005), is a question of law, which we review de novo, ¶ 8 (App. 2005).
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 20 (App. 2007); ¶ 8 (App. 2005).
State v. York Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. York Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
“[A] trial court’s imposition of a sentence in violation of a defendant’s right to a jury trial constitutes an illegal sentence and is therefore fundamental error.” ¶ 8 (App. 2005).
State v. Giebel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Giebel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Bilducia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Bilducia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Sutherland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Sutherland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 13 (App. 2005) (finding no error when the trial court considered an aggravating circumstance not found by the jury because it did not rely on that circumstance to increase the defendant’s punishment beyond the presumptive term).
State v. De Groote Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. De Groote Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-42, ¶¶ 10-13 (App. 2005) (finding no error when the court considered an aggravating factor not found by the jury but sentenced the defendant to presumptive terms); (concluding the trial court did not err in imposing a presumptive sentence even assuming it co
State v. St. Pierre Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. St. Pierre Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 13 (App. 2005) (no error when court considered aggravating factor not found by jury but sentenced defendant to presumptive terms); n.7, ¶ 45 (App. 2005) (trial court’s consideration of “lack of remorse” as aggravating factor did not warrant resentencing in view of “
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-41, ¶¶ 8, 10, -41 (App. 2005).
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 13, (no error when court imposes presumptive term after consideration of aggravating circumstance not found by jury).
State v. Yazzie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Yazzie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 12, (“[T]he Supreme Court has .
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Regenold 255 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Regenold 255 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
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
(finding one Blakely-compliant or - exempt aggravating factor renders defendant constitutionally eligible for aggravated sentence even though other Arizona statutory provisions require additional fact-finding and weighing before aggravated sentence properly imposed); , (judicial fact-finding does not violate Blakely if ultimate sentence does not exceed maximum authorized by jury verdict alone); , -43 (App.2004) (same).
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
As this court stated in State v. Johnson, 210 Ariz. 438, ¶ 12, “no constitutional violation occurs if the ultimate sentence falls within the range authorized by the jury verdict alone.” “[U]nder Arizona law, the statutory maximum sentence for [Blakely] purposes in a case in which no 30 aggr
State of Arizona v. Juan Manuel Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Juan Manuel Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(the “maximum sentence” under Apprendi is the presumptive sentence); (same, with analysis).
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
¶ 14 , (summarily rejecting challenge to constitutionality of Arizona’s noncapital sentencing statutes in light of Blakely); , (“Blakely does not impede the imposition of an aggravated sentence because the court ca