Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano, 323 P.3d 774.
-
State v. Perez
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Bogard, 221 Ariz. at 334, ¶ 30; ¶ 9 (App. 2014) (a court in a resentencing proceeding may not act beyond its limits if the sentence is not fully vacated).
- State v. Truvillion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
- State v. Walls-Bey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
- State v. Godoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
State v. Godoy
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 9 (App. 2014); (“Does the court have inherent power to modify a sentence?
- State v. Cochran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
State v. Cochran
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
P. 24.3(a); ¶ 8 (App. 2008); ¶ 9 (App. 2014)
- David C. Shinn v. Az boec/freeman Ariz. 2022
-
David C. Shinn v. Az boec/freeman
Ariz. 2022
¶ 6 (App. 2014) (concluding that Rule 24.4 does not permit the court “to supply judicial action”).
- Gish v. Greyson 514 P.3d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Gish v. Greyson
514 P.3d 937
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
§ 12-2101(A)(2); ¶ 15 (App. 2014) (A party may appeal from an invalid order, and the court of appeals can “review and vacate such orders on appeal.”).
- State v. Crain 512 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
State v. Crain
512 P.3d 97
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
–96 ¶¶ 11, 16 (App. 2014) (court has authority to modify sentence if illegal); (State appealed from a grant of defendant’s Rule 24.3 motion).
- State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- State v. Meraz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- State v. Meraz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- Yee v. Yee 484 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Yee v. Yee 484 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- State v. Fish Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
State v. Fish
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
§ 13-3821(A)(1); ¶ 23 (App. 2016) (upholding registration of a defendant who was convicted of a specified offense without a finding that it was committed with a sexual motivation element); ¶ 16 (App. 2014) (holding registration must be ordered at sentencing).
- State v. Morgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
State v. Morgan
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Only “discretionary order[s] that a person register as a sex offender must occur at the time of sentencing.” ¶ 13 (App. 2014); see A.R.S.
- Holly C. v. Tohono O'Odham Nation 434 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
-
Holly C. v. Tohono O'Odham Nation
434 P.3d 596
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
¶6 This court has an independent duty to consider its own jurisdiction, see In re Reymundo F. , , n.1, ; see also State v. Serrano , , ¶ 4, (appellate court's "jurisdiction is provided and limited by law"), which, in this instance, is limited to appeals by any party "aggrieved" by "a final order of the juvenile court," § 8-235(A).
- Sydnee J. v. Dcs, M.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- Sydnee J. v. Dcs, M.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- State v. Perry 428 P.3d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
-
State v. Perry
428 P.3d 509
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See State v. Serrano , , ¶ 4, (appellate jurisdiction "provided and limited by law.").
- State v. Peralta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
State v. Peralta
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 7 (App. 2014) (Section 13–3821 “automatically imposes registration requirements on individuals convicted of the criminal offenses set forth in subsection (A) of the statute.”).
- State v. Grijalva 392 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
-
State v. Grijalva
392 P.3d 516
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
¶ 6 In arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award restitution more than sixty days after the oral pronouncement of judgment, Grijalva relies on this court’s statement in State v. Serrano, that a “judgment and sentence are ‘complete and valid’ upon oral pronouncement, and cannot be modified thereafter except as provided by Rule 24.3, Ariz. R. Crim, P.” , (citation omitted), quoting Ariz. R. Crim.
- State v. Hon kreamer/magee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
State v. Hon kreamer/magee
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
KREAMER/MAGEE Decision of the Court ¶9 In August 2014 defendant filed a supplemental brief arguing that, P.3d 774 (App. 2014), the trial court lacked jurisdiction to require him to register as a sex offender.