Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fell, 97 P.3d 902.

27 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/haniffa Ariz. 2026
State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/haniffa Ariz. 2026
§ 1-246; ¶ 20 (2008); ¶ 10 (App. 2004).
State v. Chandler 418 P.3d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Chandler 418 P.3d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Farnsworth 389 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Farnsworth 389 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
(supreme court statutory interpretation becomes part of statute); -11 , -37 (1990) (legislative amendment is presumed to change existing law, including cases interpreting prior statute).
State v. Montes 245 P.3d 879 Ariz. 2011
State v. Montes 245 P.3d 879 Ariz. 2011
¶12 In finding SB 1449 unconstitutional, P.2d 1287 (1999), P.3d 902 (App. 2004), aff’d on other grounds, 210 Ariz. 554
State v. Montes 223 P.3d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Montes 223 P.3d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
“A legislative attempt to retroactively overrule a decision by the courts of this state interpreting a statute violates the separation of powers doctrine.” State v. *340 Fell
State of Arizona v. Maxamilano Paredes-Solano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Maxamilano Paredes-Solano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Enterprise Leasing Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 211 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Enterprise Leasing Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 211 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
See Fell, 115 P.3d at 601, P.3d 902 (App. 2004)
State v. Brown 177 P.3d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Brown 177 P.3d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Fell 115 P.3d 594 Ariz. 2005
State v. Fell 115 P.3d 594 Ariz. 2005
) ) __________________________________) Special Action from the Superior Court of Pima County The Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore No. CR20002900 REMANDED Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division Two P.3d 902 AFFIRMED BARBARA LAWALL, PIMA COUNTY ATTTORNEY Tucson By Amy Pignatella Cain, Deputy County Attorney Kathleen A. Mayer, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for State of Arizona HIGGINS & HIGGINS, P.C.
State of Arizona v. Matthew Erich Manzanedo 110 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Matthew Erich Manzanedo 110 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(“In interpreting a statute, we must attempt to give effect to the legislature’s intent.”).
State v. Chiappetta 107 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Chiappetta 107 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(once Blakely -compliant ceiling has been set, trial judge is free to engage in traditional discretionary sentencing); , (when Blakely is not implicated, trial court may impose any term within range authorized by verdict because "[j]udicial factfinding in the course of selecting a sentence within the authorized range does not implicate the indictment, jury-trial, and reasonable-doubt components of the
State v. Resendis-Felix 100 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Martinez 100 P.3d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Martinez 100 P.3d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 29 , (“Blakely does not apply to a trial court’s decision whether to sentence a defendant convicted of first-degree murder to a term of natural life imprisonment or life with the possibility of parole.”).