Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ossana, 18 P.3d 1258.

40 citing documents.

State v. Micalizzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Micalizzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
This court only considers the evidence submitted at the suppression hearing, and the superior court determines the credibility of witnesses, ¶ 7 (App. 2001).
State of Arizona v. David Lee Green 459 P.3d 45 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. David Lee Green 459 P.3d 45 Ariz. 2020
that it is illogical to apply § 13-901.01 to possession of narcotic drugs but not to the less serious offense of attempted possession of narcotic drugs); ¶ 6 (App. 2001) (finding it absurd to not include conspiracy to unlawfully possess drugs as a strike under § 13-901.01 because it is the same class offense covered by § 13-901.01); –62 ¶ 11 (App. 2001) (rejecting Stubblefield’s application of § 13- 901.01 to attempted possession convictions and declining to count them as strikes); –200 ¶ 20 (Ap
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Criticized State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-61, ¶¶ 3, 8 (App. 2001), 199-200, ¶¶ 1, 18-22 (App. 2003).
State v. Garnica Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Garnica Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 7 (App. 2001) (noting superior court determines credibility of witnesses).
State v. Green 431 P.3d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Green 431 P.3d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
§ 13-1002 ; see also State v. Ossana , , ¶ 11, (attempt to possess narcotics not a prior conviction for personal possession under § 13-901.01 ).
State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 7 (App. 2009) ( ¶ 8 (App. 2001), and Coronado Co. v. Jacome’s Dep’t Store, Inc., ).
State v. Alexander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Alexander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. MacIel 358 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. MacIel 358 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 7 , (noting we will infer findings necessary to affirm the trial court as long as there is no conflict with any express findings) ( ¶8 , and Coronado Co. v. Jacome’s Dep’t Store, Inc., , ).
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 7 (App. 2001) (“The trial court determines the credibility of witnesses.”).
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 2, (“[T]he trial court, not this court, determines the credibility of the witnesses.”) ( ¶ 7, ).
State of Arizona v. William Peter Moran 307 P.3d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. William Peter Moran 307 P.3d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State v. Ossana, 199 Ariz. 459, ¶ 8
State v. Patterson 218 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Patterson 218 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
a decision from a panel 1 in Division 2 of this court, he was eligible for probation because his conviction for attempted possession or use of a narcotic drug did not constitute a conviction under § 13-901.01(H)(1).
State v. Zamora 202 P.3d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Zamora 202 P.3d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
We will infer the necessary findings to affirm the superior court, ¶ 8 , although we will do so only if the implied findings do not conflict with the court’s express findings.
State v. Estrada 100 P.3d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Estrada 100 P.3d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
O'CONNOR v. Hyatt 87 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
O'CONNOR v. Hyatt 87 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Raney v. Lindberg 76 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Criticized Raney v. Lindberg 76 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In answering the second question
State v. Livingston 75 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Livingston 75 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
We review de novo the court’s ultimate legal determination of the propriety of a stop as a “mixed question of law and fact,” , but we consider the evidence presented at the hearing in the light most favorable to upholding its finding, State v. *147 Ossana
State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
¶ 7 , , (App. 2001), which also relates to Proposition 200.