Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Henry, 228 P.3d 900.

25 citing documents.

State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Pry 562 P.3d 885 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Pry 562 P.3d 885 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Benavidez v. Az Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Benavidez v. Az Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Cabrera-Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Cabrera-Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Cota Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cota Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Because Cota failed to do so, this court “lack[s] jurisdiction to review the propriety of the earlier dismissal.” ¶ 30 (App. 2010).
State of Arizona v. Oscar Pena Trujillo 462 P.3d 550 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Oscar Pena Trujillo 462 P.3d 550 Ariz. 2020
¶ 22 (App. 2010) (noting that Arizona’s sex offender registration system is “regulatory despite its codification in title 13, A.R.S., our criminal code”).
State v. Healer 440 P.3d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Healer 440 P.3d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Morgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Morgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 27 (App. 2010) (stating violations of the sex offender registration statutes do not constitute double jeopardy “given our conclusion that sex offender registration is a nonpunitive regulatory scheme”); ¶ 9 (App. 2002) (concluding § 13-3821 is a continuing offense that does
State v. Trujillo 430 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Overruled State v. Trujillo 430 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
He directs us to State v. Henry , , ¶ 26, , 908 (App. 2010), in which this court recognized that "under Arizona law, sex offender registration is both a sufficiently severe sanction to trigger the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and a nonpunitive civil regulation for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause"-something we found "difficul
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano 323 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano 323 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
n.5, n.5 (App. 2010) (noting due process right to notice of registration requirement); n.7, n.7 (2008) (observing “sex offender status has significant and far-reaching consequences”); ¶¶ 17, 30
State of Arizona v. Reuben Renee Cota 319 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Reuben Renee Cota 319 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Stephen Vincent Haverstick 318 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Stephen Vincent Haverstick 318 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
7 STATE v. HAVERSTICK Opinion of the Court is materially the same, we generally interpret them as having the same scope, and we typically follow federal precedent in the area.” -03 (App. 2010).
State of Arizona v. Kwame Roy Lowery 287 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Kwame Roy Lowery 287 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
See Martin, 987 P.2d at 798 (state has “significant interest” in protecting citizens from dangerous individuals); ¶¶ 16-17, (intent of registration scheme to assist law enforcement and protect 11 communities).