Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Price, 183 P.3d 1279.

48 citing documents.

State v. Whiteside Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Whiteside Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Stated differently, to assess whether a defendant’s sentencing exposure triggers the constitutional right to a twelve-person jury, courts not only “take into account allegations of sentence enhancements,” but also “whether the sentences could be imposed consecutively.” ¶ 11 (App. 2008).
State of Arizona v. Lazaro Enrique Villa, Jr. 548 P.3d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Lazaro Enrique Villa, Jr. 548 P.3d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State v. Andersen 531 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Andersen 531 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Renteria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Renteria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
However, the Blockburger same-elements test “prohibits consideration of the underlying facts or conduct.” Ortega, 220 Ariz. at 325 ¶ 14; ¶ 8 (App. 2008).
State v. Figueroa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Figueroa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Considering only the aggravated-assault and armed-robbery charges, the ultimate charge as to each of these victims was armed robbery (or attempted armed robbery).6 (aggravated robbery ultimate charge because "object of the episode was to rob the victim" and aggravated assault was "simply ancillary"); 315, ¶¶ 2, 15 (App. 2008) (when aggravated assault was charged along with armed or aggravated robbery, latter two charges were the ultimate charges).
State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Eisenmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Eisenmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 4 (App. 2008); ¶ 19 (2005).
State v. Figueroa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Figueroa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
5 STATE v. FIGUEROA Decision of the Court ¶19 Although Figueroa’s failure to object limits our review to fundamental error, ¶ 19 (2005), a violation of double jeopardy constitutes fundamental error, ¶ 4 (App. 2008).
State v. Winiker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Winiker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Carnochan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Carnochan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
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
State v. Langston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Langston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“[W]e analyze the elements of the offenses, not the facts of the case,” ¶ 5 (App. 2008), and are “prohibit[ed from] consider[ing] .
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
(possession lesser-included offense of transportation for sale); (“For double jeopardy purposes, a lesser-included offense and the greater offense of which it is a part constitute the same offense, and multiple punishments for the same offense are not permissible.”); (
State of Arizona v. Tywan Demetrius Woods 348 P.3d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Tywan Demetrius Woods 348 P.3d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
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
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
6 STATE v. COONEY Opinion of the Court Although Cooney did not raise this objection in the trial court, and our review is therefore limited to fundamental, prejudicial error, see Henderson, ¶¶ 19-20, 115 P.3d at 607, a violation of double jeopardy, if found, constitutes fundamental error
State v. Martinez 245 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Martinez 245 P.3d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
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
8 See Urquidez, , 138 P.3d at 1179 (fact defendant fired gun at victim’s vehicle remained after his pointing gun at victim subtracted); , -84 (App.2008) (after subtracting fact defendant armed with gun for purposes of armed robbery, record lacked evidence of deadly weapon necessary for aggravated assault).
State of Arizona v. Danny Louis Musgrove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Danny Louis Musgrove Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Our cases have referred to this error both as “fundamental error,” , ¶ 21 , , ¶ 10 , and as “structural error,” ¶¶ 21-22 , State v. Ring (Ring III), -66, ¶¶ 106-07 , -47 (2003) (Feldman, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
State v. Diaz 211 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Diaz 211 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
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