Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Davis, 498 P.2d 202.

39 citing documents.

State v. Villela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Villela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶16 In light of the specific facts leading to the sentences, we do not find any of the individual sentences, or the aggregate sentence, “so severe as to shock the conscience of society.” See Davis, 206 Ariz. at 388, ¶ 49, 79 P.3d at 75 (citing State v. Davis (Randal), ).
State v. Puccini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Puccini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Berger 134 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2006
State v. Berger 134 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2006
this court rejected an Eighth Amendment challenge to a mandatory ten-year sentence for a recidivist offender, but noted that “in a proper case and at a proper time we may find that a particular penalty is so severe as to shock the conscience of society" and thus violate the Eighth Amen
State v. Davis 79 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2003
State v. Davis 79 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2003
Having done so in this case, we abide by this court’s determination that when a punishment is “so severe as to shock the conscience of society,” it “violates the constitutional mandate.” State v. Davis (Randal)
State Ex Rel. Bowers v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. Bowers v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Bartlett 830 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1992
In Re the Appeals in Maricopa County Juvenile Actions No. JV119590 & No. JV118201 810 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
In Re the Appeals in Maricopa County Juvenile Actions No. JV119590 & No. JV118201 810 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Ross 804 P.2d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Ross 804 P.2d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Riley 684 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Riley 684 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
(Five to eight year sentence for transportation of marijuana without possibility of parole until minimum of three years served for a nineteen year old defendant who was a first time offender and an Indian with a socioeconomic background leading to less than criminal intelligence); , (Statutorially mandated ten year minimum sentence for transportation of marijuana with two prior convictions); and.
State v. Mulalley 618 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1980
State v. Mulalley 618 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1980
Such holdings will have to be made on a case-by-case approach which will conform to the general mores of society at the time of the decisions.”
State v. Canady 606 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1980
State v. Canady 606 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1980
State v. Pacheco 588 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1978
State v. Pacheco 588 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1978
State v. Thompson 584 P.2d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Thompson 584 P.2d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Reed 583 P.2d 1378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Reed 583 P.2d 1378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Hall 577 P.2d 1079 Ariz. 1978
State v. Hall 577 P.2d 1079 Ariz. 1978
The law in effect at the time the plea was entered did not require that the court enumerate the elements of the crime to which an accused was pleading guilty, but only that the court establish in some way that the accused understand the nature of the charge: “ [sic], , filed June 15, 1972, we held that it was not necessary that the trial judge apprise the defendant of the specific legal elements of the offense.
State v. Cook 564 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Cook 564 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
500 (1912); , , Rule 9.1, supra; Rule 26.9, supra.
State v. Birdsall 568 P.2d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Birdsall 568 P.2d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
and State v. Mendibles, 25 Ariz.App.
State v. Vandeveer 533 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Vandeveer 533 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Ferrell 499 P.2d 109 Ariz. 1972
State v. Ferrell 499 P.2d 109 Ariz. 1972
We further held that strict compliance with Federal Rule 11 is not required saying “[i]t is adherence to the spirit of Federal Rule 11 and not necessarily the literal observance of its provisions that is required by the mandate of Boykin v. Alabama, supra.” , , filed June 15, 1972, we held that it was not necessary that the trial judge apprise the defendant of the specific legal elements of the offense.