Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cranmer v. State, 63 P.3d 1036.

34 citing documents.

White v. State 565 P.3d 1062 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
White v. State 565 P.3d 1062 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 7 (App. 2016) ( ¶ 8 (App. 2003)).
State v. Burke 553 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Burke 553 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
We review the superior court’s ruling on an expungement petition for an abuse of discretion but “‘review the interpretation of statutes and court rules de novo.’” ¶ 5 (App. 2022) ( ¶ 8 (App. 2003)).
J v. v. Hon blair/morris 536 P.3d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
J v. v. Hon blair/morris 536 P.3d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
§ 11-365 clearly provides that “[t]he county attorney has sole discretion to decide whether to divert or defer prosecution of an offender.” P.3d 1036 (App. 2003) (noting that the county attorney’s sole discretion to resume prosecution stems from the county attorney’s sole discretion to divert or defer offenders).
State of Arizona v. Alan Ivan Ibarra 522 P.3d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State of Arizona v. Alan Ivan Ibarra 522 P.3d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
We review the court’s denial of the petition for an abuse of discretion, but “[w]e review the interpretation of statutes and court rules de novo,”
McGeary v. City of Sedona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
McGeary v. City of Sedona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Crain 512 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Crain 512 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 4 (App. 2008); ¶ 8 (App. 2003).
State v. Haro-Galvez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Haro-Galvez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 8 (App. 2003) (citations omitted).
State v. Godoy 418 P.3d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Godoy 418 P.3d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Fragoso v. Fell , , ¶ 7, , 1030 (App. 2005), quoting *1102 Cranmer v. State , , ¶ 8, , 1038 (App. 2003).
Stern v. Stern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stern v. Stern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Bobrow v. Herrod Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 367 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Bobrow v. Herrod Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 367 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
DISCUSSION ¶7 “We review the interpretation of statutes and court rules de novo.” ¶ 8 (App. 2003).
Roberto F. v. Department of Child Safety 332 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Roberto F. v. Department of Child Safety 332 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Welz v. Lake Havasu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Welz v. Lake Havasu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
That having been the case here, “we then review its decision on the merits to determine whether it abused its discretion in granting or denying relief.” ¶ 7
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 304 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 304 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Id.; (“We review the interpretation of .
Ritchie v. Salvatore Gatto Partners, L.P. 222 P.3d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ritchie v. Salvatore Gatto Partners, L.P. 222 P.3d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Servs., 212 Ariz. at 499, ¶ 17 , 134 P.3d at 404 ; ¶ 8 , (“We review the interpretation of statutes and court rules de novo.”).
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller 141 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller 141 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Actions 3, 17B A.R.S.; , (scope of special action limited to whether court abused its discretion).
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
¶7 “We review the interpretation of statutes and court rules de novo.”