Cited by

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

66 citing documents.

State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶¶ 21-22 (App. 2014) (H.B.
State v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-77, ¶¶ 21-22, - 60 (App. 2014).
State v. Beltran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Beltran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶6 This court has considered and rejected the retroactivity argument, and the argument that resentencing is required, -78, ¶¶ 21-22, 26 & nn.6–7 (App. 2014), cert.
State v. Stewart 377 P.3d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Stewart 377 P.3d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
As the state suggests in its response, these same arguments, including the argument that resentencing is required, ¶¶ 21-22 , 26 & nn.
State of Arizona v. Gregory Nidez Valencia, Joey Lee Healer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Valencia 370 P.3d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Gregory Nidez Valencia, Joey Lee Healer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
___ U.S. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 2469; -56 (App. 2014).
State v. Valencia 370 P.3d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
at 2469 ; , -56 (App.2014).
State v. Bustos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bustos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶7 This court recently determined in State v. Vera that, because parole had been eliminated and the only possibility of release would be by pardon or commutation, a sentence of life with the possibility of release “was, in effect,” a mandatory life sentence “in violation of the rule announced in Miller.” ¶ 17
State v. Najar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Najar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
However, P.3d 754 (App. 2014), this Court held that the recently enacted A.R.S.