Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Ronnie Roy Vera, 334 P.3d 754.

66 citing documents.

Hylton v. Shinn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Hylton v. Shinn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
ylton argues this creates a “minimum sentence expiration date” of 25 years, the term of Hylton’s sentence is “indeterminate life,” not “25 years.” 12 ¶¶ 4, 49 (2020) (noting defendant was sentenced to “consecutive life sentences” who was sentenced to “three consecutive life sentences without the possibility of release for twenty-five years”); ¶¶ 15–17 (App. 2014) (statute effectively created an “indeterminate life sentence” by providing that “the defendant shall not be released on any basis unti
State v. Ward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶¶ 18, 26-27 (App. 2014) (concluding that the legislature’s 2014 enactment of A.R.S.
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to R.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to R.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 8 (App. 2014) (“[W]e ordinarily do not consider issues on review that have not been considered and decided by the trial court.”).
Barreras v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Barreras v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 8 (App. 2014) (“[W]e ordinarily do not consider issues on review that have not been considered and decided by the trial court.”); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Alvarez Bojorquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Alvarez Bojorquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
P. 33.16(a)(1), (c)(2)(B) (stating that a petition for review of “the trial court’s final decision on a [PCR] petition” must contain, inter alia, “a statement of issues the trial court decided that the defendant is presenting for appellate review”); ¶ 8 (App. 2014) (“[W]e ordinarily do not consider issues on review that have not been considered and decided by the trial court; this is particularly true when we are reviewing a court’s decision to grant or deny post-conviction relief .
State of Arizona v. Hon. cooper/bassett Ariz. 2023
State of Arizona v. Hon. cooper/bassett Ariz. 2023
Nonetheless, even if an issue remained with Arizona’s sentencing scheme, the “Arizona legislature has now remedied that circumstance.” ¶ 27 (App. 2014).
State v. Phifer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Phifer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶8 Absent circumstances that are not apparent in this case, ¶¶ 9-11 (App. 2014), we do not consider issues raised in a petition for review that were not first presented to the superior court.
State v. King 480 P.3d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. King 480 P.3d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
–74, ¶ 8 (App. 2014) (“[W]e ordinarily do not consider issues on review that have not been considered and decided by the trial court; this is particularly true when we are reviewing a court’s decision to grant or deny post-conviction relief under Rule 32.”).
State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Dansdill 443 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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
Laws, ch. 255, § 86 (legislature eliminated parole and replaced with system of earned release credits effective January 1, 1994); see also State v. Vera , , ¶¶ 15-17
Stith v. Ensign Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Stith v. Ensign Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Agboghidi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Agboghidi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶6 The State opposed the petition, relying on this court’s
State v. Briseno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Briseno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (limiting the petition for review to “issues which were decided by the trial court and which the defendant wishes to present to the appellate court for review.”); -74, ¶ 8 (App. 2014) ().
State v. Otero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Otero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 27, (Legislature’s enactment of A.R.S.
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (stating petition for review should identify “issues which were decided by the trial court”); -74, ¶ 8 (App. 2014) (“[W]e ordinarily do not consider issues on review that have not been considered and decided by the trial court; this is particularly true when we are reviewing a court’s decision to grant or deny post-conviction relief under Rule 32.”) (citing Ramirez, 126 Ariz. at 468).
State v. James Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. James Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (limiting the petition for review to “issues which were decided by the trial court and which the defendant wishes to present to the appellate court for review”); -74, ¶ 8 (App. 2014) (
State v. Hutchinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hutchinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 8 (App. 2014) (“[W]e ordinarily do not consider issues on review that have not been considered and decided by the trial court; this is particularly true when we are reviewing a court’s decision to grant or deny post-conviction relief under Rule 32.”).
State v. Apodaca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Apodaca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (stating petition for review must identify “[t]he issues which were decided by the trial court and which the defendant wishes to present to the appellate court for review”) (emphasis added); -74, ¶ 8 (App. 2014) (citing Ramirez, 126 Ariz. at 468).
State of Arizona v. valencia/healer 386 P.3d 392 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. valencia/healer 386 P.3d 392 Ariz. 2016
Laws, ch. 166, §§ 2, 3; , 576 ¶ 18
State v. Nouan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Nouan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶¶ 21–22, (concluding that H.B.
State v. Hooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-77, ¶¶ 21-22 (App. 2014).
State v. Soto-Portillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Soto-Portillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (stating petition for review shall contain “issues which were decided by the trial court and which the defendant wishes to present to the appellate court for review”) (emphasis added); ¶ 8 (App. 2014) (“[W]e ordinarily do not consider issues on review that have not been considered and decided by the trial court; this is particularly true when we are reviewing a court’s decision to grant or deny post-conviction relief under Rule 32.”).
State v. McDaniel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. McDaniel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-77, ¶¶ 21-22, - 60 (App. 2014).
State v. Marshall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Marshall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-77, ¶¶ 21-22 (App. 2014).
State v. Bautista Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bautista Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-78, ¶¶ 21-22, 26 & nn.6-7, -61 & nn.6-7 (App. 2014),3 cert.