Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Richmond, 666 P.2d 57.

91 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
(independent review requires this Court to “determine for ourselves the .
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Conn 98 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Conn 98 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
2348 ; , ( , ) (Arizona has history of not requiring “that a defendant be advised in the indictment or information of the statutory penalty”).
State v. Viramontes 64 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2003
State v. Viramontes 64 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2003
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
-53 , -13 (1993), , 63-64 n. 7, , 1011-12 n. 7 ¶¶ 28-30 (1998); -16 , -61 (1983); -08 , -33 (1981), , 57 n. 2, , 16 n. 2 (1983).
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
-53, -13 (1993), - 64 n.7, -12 n.7 ¶¶28-30 (1998); -16, -61 (1983); -08, -33 (1981), n.2, n.2 (1983).
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
at 579 , 886 P.2d at 1335 ; , (Cameron, J., concurring) (Richmond II).
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
2444 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1327 (1983) (convictions entered prior to the sentencing hearing may be considered regardless of the order in which the underlying crimes occurred or the order in which the convictions were entered); -19 , -64 , cert.
State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hinchey 890 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1995
State v. Hinchey 890 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1995
L.Ed.2d 411 (1992) (Arizona a ‘“weighing’ state, where aggravating and mitigating factors are balanced against each other”); Brewer, 170 Ariz. at 504 , 826 P.2d at 801 (task on review to “determine whether any mitigating circumstances outweigh any aggravating circumstances”; we held no mitigating factors sufficiently substantial to call for leniency); State v. Richmond, 136 Ariz. *314 312, 321 , (agreeing that “the mitigation offered by appellant is not sufficiently substantial to outweigh the a
State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (death penalty not inherently cruel and unusual punishment); , (unnecessary to address claim that Arizona’s death penalty violates international law), cert.
State v. Richmond 886 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1994
State v. Richmond 886 P.2d 1329 Ariz. 1994
2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977) (Richmond I); State v. Richmond , , cert.
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
“There is no requirement that a defendant be advised in the indictment or information of the statutory penalty, or that he be advised what aggravating circumstances will be presented at sentencing in the event of a conviction.” , , cert.
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
689, 696 , 88 L.Ed.2d 704 (1986); , (defendant has no right to have jury participate in sentencing), citing Gretzler, 135 Ariz. at 56 , 659 P.2d at 15 ; , (there is no constitutional right to have jury find aggravating or mitigating circumstances) (cita *368 tions omitted).
State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
The state must prove an aggravating circumstance “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Harris 852 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Harris 852 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
2259 , 72 L.Ed.2d 863 (1982) (where defendant passed the jury panel without objection, defendant waived his right to complain about the jury composition on appeal), -19 , -63 (1983).
State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
“The state must prove aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991