Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Mendoza, 481 P.2d 844.

42 citing documents.

State v. Sotomayor 736 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Sotomayor 736 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
1598 , 39 L.Ed.2d 892 (1974); , , , State v. Ballez, supra.
State v. Bonney 701 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Bonney 701 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
A Yes.” , , , M. Udall and J. Livermore, Law of Evidence § 47 at 92 (2nd Ed.1982), and therefore, no error was committed.
State v. Zamora 559 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Zamora 559 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Castro 554 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Castro 554 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Latino 540 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Latino 540 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Vanderlinden 530 P.2d 1107 Ariz. 1975
State v. Vanderlinden 530 P.2d 1107 Ariz. 1975
232 P. 398 (1925); 23A C. J.S.
State v. Miniefield 522 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1974
State v. Miniefield 522 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1974
State v. Vanderlinden 519 P.2d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Vanderlinden 519 P.2d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
1 , , , 232 P. 398 (1925).
State v. Scarborough 514 P.2d 997 Ariz. 1973
State v. Scarborough 514 P.2d 997 Ariz. 1973
Mendoza [ , ] overruled Enriquez with regard to the test to be applied in determining whether sentencing on conviction of two or more charges arising out of the same act violated the terms of § 13-1641.
State v. Clayton 514 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1973
State v. Clayton 514 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1973
State v. Hill, 11 Ariz.App.
State v. Howes 508 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1973
State v. Howes 508 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1973
481 P.2d *257 844 (1971)
State v. Taylor 508 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1973
State v. Taylor 508 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1973
“Our court has stated that where a person is convicted and sentenced on two counts based upon one act, that the trial judge should then set aside the lesser conviction, (citations omitted) In view of the fact that the sentences imposed herein are the same and are concurrent, it will not be necessary to remand for resentencing.”
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J—72804 504 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J—72804 504 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Rule 17, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
State v. Gregory 501 P.2d 387 Ariz. 1972
State v. Gregory 501 P.2d 387 Ariz. 1972
State v. Williams 499 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1972
State v. Williams 499 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1972
State v. Lippi 498 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1972
State v. Lippi 498 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1972
(citations omitted) In view of the fact that the sentences imposed herein are the same and are concurrent, it will not be necessary to remand for resentencing.”
State v. Mays 494 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1972
State v. Mays 494 P.2d 368 Ariz. 1972
§§ 13-251 and 252?” Mays also urges that we reconsider his conviction of Count 3 , regarding the interpretation of A.R.S.
State v. George 491 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1971
State v. George 491 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1971
State v. Brooks 487 P.2d 387 Ariz. 1971
State v. Brooks 487 P.2d 387 Ariz. 1971
State v. Stielow 484 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Stielow 484 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of guilt as to one of the offenses which had been committed by the single act.
State v. Arce 483 P.2d 1395 Ariz. 1971
State v. Arce 483 P.2d 1395 Ariz. 1971

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by