DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Castaneda, 528 P.2d 608.

34 citing documents.

  • State v. Towery 920 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Towery 920 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1996
    (prosecutor admonished for failing to use sufficient effort to keep apprised of the evidence).
  • State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Castaneda 724 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1986
    regarding some of these priors.
  • State v. Pickett 589 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Pickett 589 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Gordon 584 P.2d 1163 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Gordon 584 P.2d 1163 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Floyd 586 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Floyd 586 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Bustamonte 593 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Bustamonte 593 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    § 13-249(A) and (B).” Appellant argues, , , that the conjunctive allegation of Assault with a Deadly Weapon under both A.R.S.
  • State v. Kidd 569 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • Distinguished State v. Kidd 569 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    in support of his contention.
  • State v. Dupuy 568 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Dupuy 568 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Barr 565 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Barr 565 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Campbell 563 P.2d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Campbell 563 P.2d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    *69 , Comment, Rule 15.6, Ariz.R.
  • State v. Garcia 560 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Garcia 560 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1977
    State v. Cas *320 taneda
  • 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
    *58 , a “knife-like object” was used by the defendant and the court stated that the punishment could be imposed under either subsection (A) or (B) of A.R.S.
  • State v. Brewer 549 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Lippard 549 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Brewer 549 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    the court stated: Rule 15.1(d) governing disclosure was violated, but it is within the discretion of the trial judge as to what is appropriate sanction.
  • State v. Lippard 549 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    State v. Chavez, 23 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Clark 543 P.2d 1122 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Clark 543 P.2d 1122 Ariz. 1975
  • 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
    ly weapon” the defendant states that the statute is ambiguous concerning the sentence to be imposed under the facts of this case and therefore the matter should be remanded for resentencing under subsection A. The Supreme Court of this state has recently discussed the issue presented by defendant in two separate opinions:
  • State v. Miller 537 P.2d 965 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Miller 537 P.2d 965 Ariz. 1975