Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis, 340 P.3d 415.

34 citing documents.

  • State v. Turay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. Turay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    ¶13 Because this Court does not reweigh the evidence, ¶ 8 (App. 2014), and the superior court is in the best position to weigh witness credibility and conflicting evidence, this Court defers to the court’s determination of those issues.
  • Joel Carson v. Hon. gentry/state Ariz. 2025
  • Joel Carson v. Hon. gentry/state Ariz. 2025
    –41 ¶¶ 10, 14 (App. 2014).
  • State v. Hendrix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Hendrix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    “Arizona courts have consistently held that criminal trespass is not a lesser-included offense of burglary.” (citations omitted); ¶ 48 (App. 2014).
  • Carson v. Hon. gentry/state 553 P.3d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Carson v. Hon. gentry/state 553 P.3d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    is presented to rebut the presumption of continued incompetence.” ¶ 14 (App. 2014).
  • Beck v. Neville Ariz. 2024
  • Beck v. Neville Ariz. 2024
    ¶ 42 (App. 2014) (defining “enclose” as “[t]o surround on all sides; close in” and “[t]o fence in so as to prevent common use” (citing The American Heritage Dictionary 587 (5th ed. 2011)) (brackets in original)).
  • Johnson v. Hon hartsell/state 525 P.3d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Johnson v. Hon hartsell/state 525 P.3d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    is presented to rebut the presumption of continued incompetence.” ¶ 14 (App. 2014).
  • Beck v. Neville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Beck v. Neville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶ 42 (App. 2014) (citing dictionary definitions of “enclose”―“[t]o surround on all sides; close in” and “[t]o fence in so as to prevent common use”) (citation omitted).
  • State v. Teran 510 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Teran 510 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    See Rodriguez, 192 Ariz. at 63, ¶ 27 (applying harmless-error review to the refusal of a requested jury instruction); ¶ 17 (App. 2012) (); ¶ 44 (App. 2014).
  • State v. Clay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Clay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    We review for harmless error, ¶ 44 (App. 2014), and find none because the jury convicted Clay of first- degree murder after receiving jury instructions on first-degree and second- degree murder, ¶ 24 (2012) (“When a jury is given a choice between first-degree murder and second-degree murder and convicts o
  • State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    “We review a court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction for an abuse of discretion,” ¶ 44 (App. 2014) (-64, ¶ 51 (2009)), and find no error here.
  • State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Leland v. Auto Nation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Leland v. Auto Nation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich Ariz. 2017
  • John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich Ariz. 2017
    § 13-4022(F); see also Grell, 212 Ariz. at 525 ¶ 40; ¶ 15 n.5 (App. 2014) (assuming without deciding that state bears burden of proof once trial court orders competency determination under Rule 11, Ariz. R. Crim.
  • State v. Miles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Miles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Kirby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Kirby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Holle, 238 Ariz. at __, ¶ 30; -46, ¶ 38 (App. 2014).
  • State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    Under this standard of review, the state must show that no reasonable jury “could find that the element omitted from the jury instructions had not been established beyond a reasonable doubt.” -25 (App. 2014).