Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Urquidez, 138 P.3d 1177.

31 citing documents.

State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“We review de novo sentencing issues that involve statutory interpretation.” ¶ 11 (App. 2006).
State v. Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Robertson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Robertson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
n.2 (App. 2011); ¶ 6 (App. 2006) ("We review de novo a trial court's decision to impose consecutive sentences in accordance with A.R.S.
State V, Threadgill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State V, Threadgill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
§ 13-116.” ¶ 6 (App. 2006).
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Urquidez , , ¶ 6
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 sugge
State v. Loyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Loyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 9, (concluding that it would have been factually impossible for the defendant, a prohibited possessor, to commit aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without also committing prohibited possession of a deadly weapon).
State v. Sanora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sanora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Victor Kyle Lizardi 323 P.3d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Victor Kyle Lizardi 323 P.3d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Cotten 263 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Cotten 263 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶6 , (citation omitted).
State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Diaz 211 P.3d 1193 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. Price 183 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Price 183 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
We also consider whether “it was factually impossible to commit the ultimate crime without also committing the secondary crime.” Finally, we consider whether the defendant’s conduct in committing the lesser crime “caused the victim to suffer a risk of harm different from or additional to that inherent in the ultimate crime.” , quoting Gordon, 161 Ariz. at 315 , 778 P.2d at 1211 (internal citations omitted; alteration in Urquidez).
State v. Brown 159 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Brown 159 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007