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. Smith, 484 P.2d 1049.

50 citing documents.

  • State v. Ross 696 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Ross 696 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    1498 , 55 L.Ed.2d 524 (1977); State v. *158 Smith, P.2d 1049 (1971); State v. Schlarp, supra; State v. Burton, 16 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Ferreira 627 P.2d 681 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Ferreira 627 P.2d 681 Ariz. 1981
    ” State v. Patton, supra, 120 Ariz. at 388 , 586 P.2d at 637 .
  • State v. Neese 616 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Neese 616 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Kelly 595 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Kelly 595 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Jerousek 590 P.2d 1366 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Jerousek 590 P.2d 1366 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Herrera 588 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Herrera 588 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Patton 586 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Patton 586 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Miller 585 P.2d 244 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Miller 585 P.2d 244 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Ellis 572 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Ellis 572 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. O'NEILL 572 P.2d 1181 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. O'NEILL 572 P.2d 1181 Ariz. 1977
    “We have consistently held that where discretion is vested in the trial judge as to the limits of the sentence, he should consider not only the circumstances of the offense but also the moral character and past conduct of the defendant, in order that he may set the punishment in accordance with the general character of both the offense and of the party convicted.”
  • State v. Fears 570 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Fears 570 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Reid 559 P.2d 136 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Reid 559 P.2d 136 Ariz. 1976
    ances and to determine what action will most likely rehabilitate him to constructive activity, (citation omitted) Accordingly, this Court has consistently held that the pronouncing of a sentence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and that we will uphold a sentence if it is within the statutory limits unless there is a clear abuse of discretion, (citations omitted).”
  • State v. Ware 554 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Ware 554 P.2d 1267 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Ware 554 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1976
    (citations omitted) Accordingly, this Court has consistently held that the pronouncing of a sentence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and that we will uphold a sentence if it is within the statutory limits unless there is a clear abuse of discretion, (citations omitted)”
  • State v. Ware 554 P.2d 1267 Ariz. 1976
    tances and to determine what action will most likely rehabilitate him to constructive activity, (citation omitted) Accordingly, this Court has consistently held that the pronouncing of a sentence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and that we will uphold a sentence if it is within the statutory limits unless there is a clear abuse of discretion, (citations omitted)”
  • State v. Knaubert 550 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Knaubert 550 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    tances and to determine what action will most likely rehabilitate him to constructive activity, (citation omitted) Accordingly, this Court has consistently held that the pronouncing of a sentence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and that we will uphold a sentence if it is within the statutory limits unless there is a clear abuse of discretion, (citations omitted)”
  • State v. Noles 546 P.2d 814 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Noles 546 P.2d 814 Ariz. 1976
    (citation omitted) Accordingly, this Court has consistently held that the pronouncing of a sentence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and that we will uphold a sentence if it is *84 within the statutory limits unless there is a clear abuse of discretion, (citations omitted)”
  • State v. Grange 543 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Grange 543 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    *296 (sentence of 15 years to life); , (sentence of 10 to 20 years) ; and State v. Church, supra (sentence of 35 to 50 years).
  • State v. Settle 531 P.2d 151 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Settle 531 P.2d 151 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Dixon 521 P.2d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. Dixon 521 P.2d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. Bettis 514 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Bettis 514 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. McCline 514 P.2d 490 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. McCline 514 P.2d 490 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Shing 509 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Shing 509 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Fischer 498 P.2d 147 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Fischer 498 P.2d 147 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Harden 492 P.2d 401 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Harden 492 P.2d 401 Ariz. 1971