DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lee, 559 P.2d 657.

75 citing documents.

  • State v. Cowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. Cowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    ¶25 “Mere observation that a particular group is underrepresented on a particular panel does not support a constitutional challenge.” (1976).
  • State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    and establish the defendant as the person to whom the document refers.” (-75 (1976), ); (identifying limited exceptions to the standard procedure outlined in Lee).
  • State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    and establish the defendant as the person to whom the document refers.” (-06 (1976)).
  • State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Javier Solis 338 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Javier Solis 338 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State v. Gonzales 314 P.3d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Gonzales 314 P.3d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    -32 , -84 (1984) (affirming sentence based on testimony of probation officer who had prepared a presentenee report in connection with prior convictions and was present when the prior judgments and sentences were entered and imposed, but holding that generally documentary evidence is necessary to establish prior convictions), , (holding that a trial court cannot find a prior conviction for purposes of aggravating a sentence by taking judicial notice of a prior case in which the court had reviewed
  • State v. Geeslin 212 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Geeslin 212 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
  • State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
    and establish the defendant as the person to whom the document refers.” State v. Lee, 114 Ariz. 101, 105
  • State v. Morales 157 P.3d 479 Ariz. 2007
  • State v. Morales 157 P.3d 479 Ariz. 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Miller 156 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Miller 156 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    and establish the defendant as the person to whom the document refers.’” Id., (alterations in Hauss).2 The court provided “two very limited exceptions” to the document requirement for proving prior convictions: (1) if the defendant admits the prior conviction while testifying in court, or (2) the state shows that it was unable to obtain the documentation despit
  • 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
    at 231, 681 P.2d at 383 (alteration in Hauss)
  • State v. Gomez 127 P.3d 873 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. Gomez 127 P.3d 873 Ariz. 2006
    (holding that reversal meant convictions were not prior convictions for purposes of harsher sentence); , (same).
  • State of Arizona v. Mark Anthony Cons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State v. Cons 94 P.3d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State of Arizona v. Mark Anthony Cons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    See Hauss; P.2d 657 (197 6) (proper p rocedure for proving prior conv ictions is to offer certified copy of conviction); see also Ariz. R. Evid.
  • State v. Cons 94 P.3d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    See Hauss; , (proper procedure for proving prior convictions is to offer certified copy of conviction); see also Ariz. R. Evid.
  • In re Sabino R. 10 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • In re Sabino R. 10 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    See Rushing, 156 Ariz. at 4 , 749 P.2d at 914 ; -06 , -61 (1976)
  • State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    The defendant now argues on appeal that this was error, , (holding that the proper procedure to prove prior convictions is to offer a certified copy of the conviction), , (holding that release status must be proven by clear and convincing evidence through reliable documentary evi
  • 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
    See Arnett, 119 Ariz. at 50 , 579 P.2d at 554
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Marlow 786 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Marlow 786 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Rockwell 775 P.2d 1069 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Rockwell 775 P.2d 1069 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Hurley 741 P.2d 257 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Hurley 741 P.2d 257 Ariz. 1987
    This documentation requirement may be excused only if defendant admits the prior conviction or the state can show “that its earnest and diligent attempts to procure the necessary documentation were unsuccessful for reasons beyond its control and that the evidence introduced in its stead is highly reliable.” 140 Ariz. at 231 , 681 P.2d at 383 ; -06 , -62 (1976).
  • State v. Dogan 724 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Dogan 724 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    Appellant’s argument has been discussed and decided adversely by our supreme court in State v. Bernal, supra
  • State v. Robinson 689 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Robinson 689 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Hauss 681 P.2d 382 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Hauss 681 P.2d 382 Ariz. 1984
    -106 , -62 (1976), we held that: “The proper procedure to establish the prior conviction is for the state to offer in evidence a certified copy of the conviction [rules omitted] * * * and establish the defendant as the person to whom the document refers.
  • State v. Bernal 671 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Bernal 671 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1983