Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Francisco Flores Huez, Jr., 380 P.3d 103.

26 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Tito Rene Scott 530 P.3d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Tito Rene Scott 530 P.3d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
(existence of warrant does not necessarily “‘dissipate[] the taint of illegality,’ because to hold otherwise would allow police to ‘routinely illegally seiz[e] individuals, knowing that the subsequent discovery of a warrant would provide after-the-fact justification for illegal conduct’” (alterations
State v. Soliven Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Soliven Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
We “restrict our review to consideration of the facts the trial court heard at the suppression hearing,” and will affirm the court’s ruling if it was legally correct for any reason, ¶ 19 (App. 2016).
State v. Botch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Botch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
We “restrict our review to consideration of the facts the [] court heard at the suppression hearing,” and will affirm [the] court’s ruling if it was legally correct for any reason, ¶ 19 (App. 2016) (citation omitted).
State v. Alarcon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Alarcon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Keeten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Keeten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In doing so, we defer to the superior court’s determination of the witnesses’ credibility, ¶ 6 (App. 2010), and we will uphold the ruling if it is legally correct for any reason, ¶ 19 (App. 2016).
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. McCoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. McCoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In doing so, we defer to a superior court’s determination of witnesses’ credibility, see Mendoza-Ruiz, 225 Ariz. at 475, ¶ 6, and uphold the court’s ruling if it is legally correct for any reason, ¶ 19 (App. 2016).
State v. Epsy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Epsy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
We affirm a court’s ruling “if legally correct for any reason and, in doing so, we may address the state’s arguments to uphold the court’s ruling even if those arguments otherwise could be deemed waived by the state’s failure to argue them below.” ¶ 19 (App. 2016).
State v. Aguayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Aguayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Payan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Payan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In re the Marriage of Friedman 397 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
In re the Marriage of Friedman 397 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
(appellate court required to affirm trial court's ruling if legally correct for any reason).