Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cons, 94 P.3d 609.

62 citing documents.

State v. Moreno-Medrano 185 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Moreno-Medrano 185 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
n. 6 , , 766 n. 6 (App.2005) (noting defendant’s failure to argue fundamental error); , (same); see also Ariz. R.Crim.
State of Arizona v. Micah S. Bennett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Micah S. Bennett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
2 positive identification establishing that the accused is the same person who previously was convicted, as well as evidence of the conviction itself.”
State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Canion v. Cole 115 P.3d 1261 Ariz. 2005
Canion v. Cole 115 P.3d 1261 Ariz. 2005
See State v. McCann, 200 Ariz. 27, 31, ¶ 15, State v. Cons, 208 Ariz. - 8 - 409, 416, ¶ 19
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Apprendi’s exception of the fact of a prior conviction from the dictates of the Sixth Amendment trial-by-jury requirement.” See Blakely, ___ U.S. at ___, 124 S. Ct. at 2536 (applying, but not altering, “the rule we expressed in Apprendi,” which expressly excluded “‘the fact of a prior conviction’”), quoting Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S. Ct. at 2362-63, 147 L. Ed. 2d at 455; n.3, -15, 613 n.3 (App. 2004).10 10 See also United States v. Quintana-Quintana, 383 F.3d 1052, 1053 (9th Cir. 2004); U
State v. Estrada 108 P.3d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Estrada 108 P.3d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
See United States v. Quintana-Quintana, 383 F.3d 1052, 1053 (9th Cir.2004) (citing widespread agreement among federal circuit courts that Blakely preserves the exception for the fact of a prior conviction); , ¶ 10 n. 3, , 613 n. 3 (App.2004).