Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON, 269 P.3d 1181.

61 citing documents.

State v. Kleinman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Kleinman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Maloney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Maloney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
This Court has previously concluded that convictions and punishments for different images discovered on one device “are constitutionally permissible because the legislature intended the unit of prosecution to be each individual ‘depiction.’” ¶ 7 (App. 2012) (citing A.R.S.
State v. Landers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Landers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 12 (App. 2012) (finding § 13-116 inapplicable where defendant committed multiple violations of the same law); (“Because both counts are punishable under the same sections of the law, consecutive sentences would not have constituted double punishment in violation of our
State of Arizona v. Evan McCarrick Jerald 548 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Evan McCarrick Jerald 548 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
We are “bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and [have] no authority to overturn or refuse to follow its decisions.”
Mayberry v. Stambaugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Mayberry v. Stambaugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 13 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 23 (App. 2004)).
State v. Rix 536 P.3d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Rix 536 P.3d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Berger, 212 Ariz. at 473– 74, 477–78, ¶¶ 2–3, 19–23 (2006); ¶ 6 (App. 2012).
State v. Richardson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Richardson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
–61, ¶¶ 7–8 (App. 2012) Richardson also claims the superior court unlawfully issued enhanced sentences and the settlement judge should not have presided over sentencing.
State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Followed State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
We are bound by those decisions, and any departure falls within “the exclusive purview of that court.” ¶ 16 (App. 2012).
State v. Ruzzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Ruzzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
§ 13-705(R)(1)(g) (classifying “[s]exual exploitation of a minor” that is “committed against a minor who is under fifteen years of age” as a “[d]angerous crime against children”); ¶ 6 (App. 2012) (describing how possession of child pornography harms the “victim” depicted in the illicit image).
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 4 (App. 2012) (“[A]n illegal sentence constitutes fundamental, prejudicial error.”).
State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(whether supreme court decisions should be disaffirmed is a question for the supreme court).
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
§ 13-116; ¶ 12 (App. 2012) (finding § 13-116 inapplicable where defendant committed multiple violations of the same law); (“Because both counts are punishable under the same sections of the law, consecutive sentences would not have constituted double punishment in violation of ou
State of Arizona v. Martin Raul Soto-Fong 474 P.3d 34 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Martin Raul Soto-Fong 474 P.3d 34 Ariz. 2020
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶¶ 19–21 (App. 2012) (recognizing that possession of child pornography “continue[s] to haunt and harm the children depicted”); see also A.R.S.
State v. Soza 464 P.3d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Soza 464 P.3d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Jurden, 239 Ariz. at 528-29, ¶¶ 7, 11; ¶ 5 (App. 2012) (“The intent of the legislature in defining and fixing the punishment for an offense is a question of law we review de novo.”).
State v. Wadi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wadi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 3 (2006) (“Under this statutory scheme, the possession of each image of child pornography is a separate offense.”); ¶¶ 6–7 (App. 2012) (“[T]he legislature intended the unit of prosecution to be each individual ‘depiction.’”).
State v. Weatherspoon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Weatherspoon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
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. McPherson , , ¶ 13, (quoting State v. Long , , ¶ 23, ).
State v. Carter 429 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Carter 429 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. McPherson , , ¶ 5, , 1183-84 (App. 2012).
State v. Covarrubias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Covarrubias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“[F]ailure to impose a sentence in conformity with the mandatory provisions of the sentencing statute makes that sentence ‘illegal.’”); ¶ 4 (App. 2012) (illegal sentence constitutes fundamental, prejudicial error); –20 (App. 1993) (sentence illegal when imposed in unlawful manner by court's failure to consider material information); (sentence outside applicable ran
State v. Neal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Neal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-64, ¶¶ 17-21 (App. 2012) (rejecting argument that classifying and punishing possession of child pornography as a dangerous crime against children is violative of equal protection because it 3 STATE v. NEAL Decision
State v. Cunningham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cunningham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 4, (internal citations omitted).
State v. Gulli 391 P.3d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Gulli 391 P.3d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
However, he “essentially seeks a ruling that this court is not empowered to provide.”
State v. Shreve Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Shreve Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017