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. Tinghitella, 491 P.2d 834.

122 citing documents.

  • State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Barrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Barrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Gordon, 161 Ariz. at 312
  • State v. Harm 340 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Harm 340 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Id.; (adopting “identical elements” test to determine whether act or omission results in double punishment).
  • State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    At oral argument, defense counsel asserted that, before we could consider the factors enunciated in Gordon , , had been satisfied.
  • State v. PROVENZINO 212 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. PROVENZINO 212 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
  • State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
    mine whether conspiracy and transportation constitute separate acts, for which consecutive sentences are permissible, or only one act, for which sentences must be concurrent, we first apply the “identical elements test.” ( ).
  • State v. Cook 916 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Cook 916 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    1345 , 43 L.Ed.2d 362 (1975), in which the court stated: The question of whether two offenses are the same, and the criteria for resolving that question
  • Hernandez v. Superior Court 880 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Hernandez v. Superior Court 880 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    Section 13-116 requires a
  • State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
    Gordon, 161 Ariz. at 315 , 778 P.2d at 1211 ( , ).
  • State v. Harper 868 P.2d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Harper 868 P.2d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    In so determining, the court reiterated a , which instructs us to eliminate the evidence necessary to convict on the ultimate charge and then determine if the remaining evidence satisfies the elements of the other charge, in which case consecutive sentences are permissible.
  • State v. Arnoldi 860 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. Arnoldi 860 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
    That section provides in part: “An act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different sections of the laws may be punished under both, but in no event may sentences be other than concurrent.” Although Arizona previously used only the “identical elements” test to determine whether the evidence shows that a single act occurred for purposes of § 13-116, , additional factors are now examined as well.
  • State v. Boldrey 861 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. Boldrey 861 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
    After reviewing approaches from other jurisdictions to determine what constitutes an “act” within the meaning of § 13-116, the Gordon court added to the previously-applied “identical elements” , as follows: Thus, we will continue to apply Tinghi-tella and judge a defendant’s eligibility for consecutive sentences by considering the facts of each crime separately, subtracting from the factual transaction the evidence necessary to convict on the ultimate charge — the one that is at the ess
  • State v. Slemmer 823 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Slemmer 823 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Jackson 821 P.2d 1374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Jackson 821 P.2d 1374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Belyeu 795 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Belyeu 795 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    continues to have vitality and prescribes the following approach: (1) the facts of each crime are to be considered separately, “subtracting from the factual transaction the evidence necessary to convict on the ultimate charge,” which is often the most serious crime; (2) “[i]f the remaining evide
  • State v. Viramontes 788 P.2d 67 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Viramontes 788 P.2d 67 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Gordon 778 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Gordon 778 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
    we adopted the “identical elements” test to determine when consecutive sentences violated A.R.S.
  • State v. Alvarado 761 P.2d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Alvarado 761 P.2d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Jerdee 743 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Jerdee 743 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    the court stated: The fact that the County Attorney’s final argument mentioned the use of the gun, if error, was harmless in view of the jury instructions which properly defined unarmed obstructing and made no reference to armed obstructing.
  • State v. Devine 724 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Devine 724 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    Additionally, it argues that appellant’s actions satisfy the “identical elements” , so as to permit the imposition of consecutive sentences.
  • State v. Griffin 713 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Griffin 713 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Vaughn 708 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Vaughn 708 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Garcia 673 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Garcia 673 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Anderjeski v. City Court of City of Mesa 663 P.2d 233 Ariz. 1983
  • Anderjeski v. City Court of City of Mesa 663 P.2d 233 Ariz. 1983
    The “identical elements” , [1971] applies to A.R.S.