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. Kennedy, 472 P.2d 59.

46 citing documents.

  • State v. Cereceres 800 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Cereceres 800 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Cruz-Mata 674 P.2d 1368 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Cruz-Mata 674 P.2d 1368 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. San Miguel 643 P.2d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. San Miguel 643 P.2d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Wallis 646 P.2d 884 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Wallis 646 P.2d 884 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    State v. Sanchez, 19 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Cruz 600 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Cruz 600 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969)
  • State v. Warde 570 P.2d 766 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Warde 570 P.2d 766 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Rodriguez 569 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Rodriguez 569 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Rios 562 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Rios 562 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    : “While the determination of the sentence is within the discretion of the trial court, the amount of time that a defendant has served in jail prior to conviction should be taken into consideration by the court in the passing of sentence.
  • State v. O'DONNAL 521 P.2d 984 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Parle 521 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Parle 521 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1974
    we stated that it is presumed the trial court takes into consideration the time served in county jail prior to sentencing the defendant.
  • State v. O'DONNAL 521 P.2d 984 Ariz. 1974
    No. 2719, filed February 22, 1974; , , No. 2599, filed March 25, 1974.
  • State v. Drury 520 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Drury 520 P.2d 495 Ariz. 1974
    He suggests that the sentence imposed reflects a “fundamental misconception of modern penology.” In a recent case we reaffirmed that the purpose of our criminal laws are multifold: “ , we held that not only are punishment and rehabilitation two objectives of our penal laws, but also there is the function of protecting society from further harm by the criminal.
  • State v. Battelle 520 P.2d 308 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Battelle 520 P.2d 308 Ariz. 1974
    we held that not only are punishment and rehabilitation two objectives of our penal laws, but also there is the function of protecting society from further harm by the criminal.
  • State v. Robbins 518 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Robbins 518 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1974
    : “There is a presumption that the trial court took into consideration all factors, including the time served in the county jail prior to the date of sentencing.” Second, defendant urges that the Superior Court was not justified in imposing such a severe sentence upon defendant because of
  • State v. Postell 509 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Postell 509 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    State v. Gordon, 19 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Witt 508 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Witt 508 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    State v. Benton, 19 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Gordon 507 P.2d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • State v. Gordon 507 P.2d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
    State v. Rider, 18 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Benton 507 P.2d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Benton 507 P.2d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Sanchez 506 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Sanchez 506 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Lerma 495 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Lerma 495 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Phillips 492 P.2d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Phillips 492 P.2d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    the court held that while a court may take into consideration the time served in a county jail prior to sentence it is not a matter of right but discretionary with the trial court as to whether or not such time should be deducted from the sentence.
  • State v. Tritle 488 P.2d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Tritle 488 P.2d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    However, these cases pertain solely to time served under a prior conviction, and do not involve the question of credit for time served in jail prior to a conviction and sentence.”
  • State v. Makal 480 P.2d 347 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Makal 480 P.2d 347 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Van Winkle 478 P.2d 105 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Van Winkle 478 P.2d 105 Ariz. 1970
    in which we held: “While a court may take into consideration the time served in jail prior to sentence it is held to be not a matter of right but discretionary with the trial court.