DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Harris, 648 P.2d 145.

38 citing documents.

  • State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    ¶15 The superior court is empowered to impose and modify sentences only “as authorized by statute and within the limits set down by the legislature.” see A.R.S.
  • State v. Hopson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Hopson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    (“Courts have power to impose sentences only as authorized by statute and within the limits set down by the legislature.”).
  • State v. Mata Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Mata Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶3 “Courts have power to impose sentences only as authorized by statute and within the limits set down by the legislature.”
  • State v. Ales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Ales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “Courts have [the] power to impose sentences only as authorized by statutes and within the limits set down by the legislature.” ¶ 27, ( ).
  • State of Arizona v. Ronnie Roy Vera 334 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Ronnie Roy Vera 334 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • Susan Scheerer v. State of Arizona 281 P.3d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • Susan Scheerer v. State of Arizona 281 P.3d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    “Courts have power to impose sentences only as authorized by statute and within the limits set down by the legislature.”
  • State v. Stocks 258 P.3d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State v. Stocks 258 P.3d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    Thus, “[c]ourts have the power to impose sentences only as authorized by statute and within the limits set down by the legislature.”
  • State v. Rosario 987 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Rosario 987 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    ¶27 “Courts have power to impose sentences only as authorized by statutes and within the limits set down by the legislature.”
  • State v. Arizona Department of Corrections 928 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Arizona Department of Corrections 928 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
    (“Whether or not a prisoner is eligible for release on parole or absolute discharge is not for courts to decide — it is within the control of the board of pardons and paroles, or the department of corrections.” (citations omitted)).
  • State v. Carbajal 907 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • State v. Carbajal 907 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
    (when defendant’s plea was based on erroneous belief that he would be released in 15 years, trial court must afford him an opportunity to withdraw).
  • State v. Lyons 804 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Lyons 804 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1990
    at 489 , 794 P.2d at 122 ; , A.R.S.
  • State v. Wagstaff 794 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Wagstaff 794 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1990
    *489 (discussing Department of Corrections authority); , (discussing distribution of authority).
  • State v. Conroy 797 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Conroy 797 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    (trial court erred when accepting defendant’s plea by failing to advise defendant that he could be confined in jail for one year as part of probation); , (defendant should be afforded opportunity to withdraw guilty plea when it appears defendant changed his plea based on mistaken belief he would receive lesser sentence than that which he received).
  • State v. Vargas-Burgos 783 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Vargas-Burgos 783 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    (“Courts have power to impose sentences only as authorized by statute and within the limits set down by the legislature.”).
  • State v. Berger 790 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Berger 790 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    : Courts have power to impose sentences only as authorized by statute and within the limits set down by the legislature.
  • State v. Wagstaff 775 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Wagstaff 775 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • Application of Webb 723 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1986
  • Application of Webb 723 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1986
  • Cooper v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 717 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Cooper v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 717 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
    defendant received twenty-two years, fifteen years “flat time,” for armed robbery with two prior felony convictions.