Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Guillory, 18 P.3d 1261.

28 citing documents.

State v. Viste Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Viste Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State of Arizona v. David Lee Green 459 P.3d 45 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. David Lee Green 459 P.3d 45 Ariz. 2020
possession of drugs for sale count as strikes under § 13-901.01 despite language explicitly excluding possession for sale in subsection (C)); ¶ 6 (App. 2000) (reasoning that it is illogical to apply § 13-901.01 to possession of narcotic drugs but not to the less serious offense of attempted possession of narcotic drugs); ¶ 6 (App. 2001) (finding it absurd to not include conspiracy to unlawfully possess drugs as a strike under § 13-901.01 because it is the same class offense covered by § 13-901.0
State v. Green 431 P.3d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Green 431 P.3d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
¶ 19 In State v. Guillory , , ¶ 1, this court reasoned that "conspiracy to unlawfully possess a narcotic drug" could be counted as a prior disqualifying offense because "it 'is an offense of the same class as the most serious offense which is the object of or result of the conspiracy.'
State v. Gutierrez 381 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gutierrez 381 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Notice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Notice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Carlos Ubaldo Gonzalez 330 P.3d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Carlos Ubaldo Gonzalez 330 P.3d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
See California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 625-29 (1991)
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“We interpret statutes to effect the intent of the legislature.” ¶ 3
State of Arizona v. Kyle Evan Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Kyle Evan Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Canales 217 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Canales 217 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
1868 ; , (seizure requires use of physical force or submission to assertion of authority).
State v. Rojers 169 P.3d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Rojers 169 P.3d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 17 Additionally, as to the motion to suppress, all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of upholding the court’s factual determinations, ¶ 9 , and “we are obligated to uphold the trial court’s ruling if legally correct for any reason.” State v. Cañez, ¶ 51
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
A court is not required to place a defendant on probation when a defendant has been convicted for a third time of personal possession of a controlled substance, see § 13- 901.01(H)(1); or when a defendant “has been convicted of or indicted for a violent crime as defined in §13- 604.04,” § 13-901.01(B).
State v. Story 75 P.3d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Story 75 P.3d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
¶ 3 , (holding that “the term ‘convicted’ throughout § 13-901.01 refers to a conviction on the instant offense for which an offender faces sentencing”), , (holding that for purposes of § 13-604(U)(1)(d), prior felo
State v. Rodriguez 23 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Rodriguez 23 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Ossana 18 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Ossana 18 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
¶ 12 , which also relates to Proposition 200.