Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Williams, 515 P.2d 849.
- State v. Rady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
State v. Rady
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(“A knife is a deadly weapon.”); see also Clevidence, 153 Ariz. at 300–01 (holding that a knife six inches long was a “deadly weapon” under A.R.S.
- State v. Schweigert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
State v. Schweigert
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(knife was a deadly weapon); -01 (App. 1987) (six-inch knife was a deadly weapon).
- State v. Lombardo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- State v. Lombardo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- State v. Pino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
State v. Pino
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“A knife is a deadly weapon.”).
- State v. Clevidence 736 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- State v. Clevidence 736 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- State v. Dorsey 564 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
-
State v. Dorsey
564 P.2d 939
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
We believe that would be sufficient time for the probation officer to supplement her previous report and instead of delaying sentencing for 30 days.” , and State v. Rose, 24 Ariz.App.
- State v. Garcia 560 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1977
-
State v. Garcia
560 P.2d 1224
Ariz. 1977
As to the second contention, , held that a knife is a deadly weapon for the purposes of subsection B of A.R.S.
- State v. Corrao 563 P.2d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
-
State v. Corrao
563 P.2d 310
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
§ 13-249, , for the proposition that a knife is a “deadly weapon.” Again, in State v. Adrian, 24 Ariz.App.
- State v. Adrian 538 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
-
State v. Adrian
538 P.2d 773
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
§ 13-249, , for the proposition that a knife is a “deadly weapon”.
- State v. Rose 535 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- State v. Rose 535 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- State v. Castaneda 528 P.2d 608 Ariz. 1974
-
State v. Castaneda
528 P.2d 608
Ariz. 1974
As amended Laws 1967, Ch. 62, § 3.” , we stated that a knife is a deadly weapon, and the specific statute, § 13-249(A) and (B), has been upheld against an attack that it was unconstitutionally vague, see
- State v. Robinson 526 P.2d 396 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Robinson 526 P.2d 396 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Romo 523 P.2d 501 Ariz. 1974
-
State v. Romo
523 P.2d 501
Ariz. 1974
Defendant’s , Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct.