Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Javier Solis, 338 P.3d 982.

36 citing documents.

State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
See State v. Solis, 5 STATE v. COOK Decision of the Court ¶ 21 (App. 2014) (ADOC pen packs—the master records for each prisoner—are sufficient to prove prior convictions).
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
We are not bound by the decisions of courts in other states, and because Arizona caselaw addresses this issue, we need not look to other jurisdictions for guidance.
State v. Mason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Mason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
We are not bound by the State’s concession of error, ¶ 23 (App. 2014), and we review whether one crime is a lesser-included offense of another de novo, ¶ 12 (App. 2007).
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
at ¶ 16; -49, ¶ 22 (App. 2014) (holding that a Department of STATE v. JONES Decision of the Court Corrections record with a photograph matching other admitted documents was sufficient).
State v. Cawthon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Cawthon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Bennett, 216 Ariz. at 16, 18 ¶¶ 1, 8; ¶ 11 (App. 2014) (in-state exemplification incorporates attached documents as being true and correct copies).
State of Arizona v. Justin Alexander Copeland 509 P.3d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State of Arizona v. Justin Alexander Copeland 509 P.3d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State v. Pearsall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Pearsall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-49, ¶¶ 17, 20-22 (App. 2014) (holding that DOC record with photographs matching other admitted documents was sufficient and no testimonial evidence was required).
State v. Rady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Rady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 23 (App. 2014) (appellate court is not bound by the state’s concession of error).
State v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶9 To bolster his argument
Bussberg v. Walker 420 P.3d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Bussberg v. Walker 420 P.3d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-46, ¶¶ 8-10 (App. 2014), we refused to invalidate a document because a notary had done more than the statute at issue required.
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See, ¶¶ 21-22 (App. 2014) (finding documentary evidence was sufficient to prove a prior historical felony because it contained a photograph that the trial court found depicted the defendant).
State v. Tarpley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Tarpley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 21 (App. 2014) (“[P]en packs alone may be sufficient to prove prior convictions.”).
State v. Esquerra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Esquerra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The jury also convicted Esquerra on count two, aggravated driving a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, which is a lesser included offense of count three because “the only difference between [the] two DUI charges is the BAC threshold.” ¶23-24, (internal citation omitted).
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. McKnelly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. McKnelly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 31–221 (2002) (“The state department of corrections shall maintain a master record file on each person who is committed to the department”); n.1 (App. 2014).
Beau Hodai v. the City of Tucson and Tucson Police Department 365 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Beau Hodai v. the City of Tucson and Tucson Police Department 365 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Although he is correct that Arizona courts are not bound by precedent from other states, our courts may look to cases from other jurisdictions as persuasive authority.
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
And, “we are not bound by decisions from other states.”
State v. Brechler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Brechler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 24, (“charges of driving with a BAC of .08 or more and extreme DUI with a BAC of .15 are lesser-included offenses of DUI with a BAC of .20 or more, and double jeopardy bar[s] .