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. Hanson, 674 P.2d 850.

61 citing documents.

  • State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    –05 (App. 1983) (where a conflict exists between the oral pronouncement and the record, the oral pronouncement controls).
  • State v. Burress Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Dudley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    –05 (App. 1983) ("Where there is a discrepancy between the oral sentence and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement of sentence controls.").
  • Distinguished David C. Shinn v. Az boec/freeman Ariz. 2022
    See, (“A clerical mistake involves a failure to record accurately a statement made or action taken by the court or one of the parties.” (quoting 8A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 36.02 at 36–2)).
  • State v. Sholes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    2 STATE v. SHOLES Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶5 “Where there is a discrepancy between the oral sentence and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement of sentence controls.” -05 (App. 1983).
  • State v. Ruelas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    STATE v. RUELAS Decision of the Court 304 (App. 1983); see generally Ariz. R. Crim.
  • State v. Meraz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    (“A clerical mistake involves a failure to record accurately a statement made or action taken by the court or one of the parties.”) (quoting 8A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 36.02 at 36-2).
  • State v. Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    “Where there is a discrepancy between the oral sentence and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement of sentence controls.” -05 (App. 1983); (finding remand for clarification of sentence is appropriate where discrepancy “cannot be resolved by reference to the record”).
  • State v. Botsford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    But unlike the right to counsel, “[s]elf-representation does not further any fair trial interests and is protected solely out of respect for the defendant’s personal autonomy.”
  • State v. Runnels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    (no error when court later modifies a sentence when “its intent is clearly expressed in the record”).
  • State v. Hastings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Dwyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (“Oral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.”) (-05 (App. 1983)).
  • State v. Vincent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Champagne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Champagne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    (holding that a defendant is “deemed to have voluntarily waived” the right to proceed pro se when the defendant fails to make an unequivocal and timely assertion of that right).
  • State of Arizona v. Francisco Antonio Lopez 279 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • State of Arizona v. Francisco Antonio Lopez 279 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    Ariz. 296, 304-05, -59 (App. 1983) (holding “oral pronouncement of sentence controls” over sentencing minute entry).
  • State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    “Where there is a discrepancy between the oral sentence and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement of sentence controls.” State v. Hanson, 138 Ariz. 296, 304-05, -59 (App. 1983); n.3, n.3 (App. 1999).
  • State v. Simpson 173 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Simpson 173 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    -05 , -59 (App.1983) ("Where there is a discrepancy between the oral sentence and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement of sentence controls.”).
  • State of Arizona v. Virginia L. Ofstedahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State of Arizona v. Virginia L. Ofstedahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    ¶5 In its order denying the petition, the trial court found Thompson was not controlling, P.2d 520 (1980); P.2d 1320 (App. 1995); P.2d 850 (App. 1983).
  • State v. Leon 3 P.3d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Leon 3 P.3d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    The oral pronouncement controls, , and the minute entry is amended to delete any reference to repetitive offenses.
  • State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
    (citing Meeks v. Craven, 482 F.2d 465, 467 (9th Cir.1973)).
  • State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Lacy 929 P.2d 1288 Ariz. 1996
    In determining whether defendant’s admissions were induced by promises, we must examine not only what was said before he gave the statement, see, , but also whether he justifiably relied on any assurances he obtained.
  • State v. Ives 927 P.2d 762 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Ives 927 P.2d 762 Ariz. 1996
  • Campbell v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Campbell v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Arnoldi 860 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. Arnoldi 860 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
    Contrary to the trial court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing, , we note that the minute entry states that the sentence in count one is to be served consecutively to the sentence in count two.
  • State v. Binder 826 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Binder 826 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Bowles 841 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Bowles 841 P.2d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    -05 , -59 (App.1983), wherein the court stated: Appellant also contends that even if the trial court had jurisdiction to correct the minute entry, double jeopardy protects him from a subsequent increase in punishment.
  • State v. Stanley 809 P.2d 944 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Stanley 809 P.2d 944 Ariz. 1991
    “It is for the trial court to resolve conflicting testimony.”
  • 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
  • State v. Guerrero 769 P.2d 1014 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Guerrero 769 P.2d 1014 Ariz. 1989
    Indeed, the dissent in the court of appeals cites three cases from that court holding that a defendant’s right to trial “within 150 days of his arrest can be waived by failure to object.” Guerrero, 156 Ariz. at 602 , 754 P.2d at 329 (Roll, J., dissenting) ( , 303, (Ct.App.
  • State v. Whitney 768 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1989