Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Steelman, 585 P.2d 1213.

75 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Gregory Nidez Valencia, Joey Lee Healer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Valencia 370 P.3d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Gregory Nidez Valencia, Joey Lee Healer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
See, (remanding for redetermination of sentence in light of recent case law).
State v. Valencia 370 P.3d 124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
See, e.g., State v. Steelman, *259 , (remanding for redetermination of sentence in light of recent ease law).
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Greenberg 343 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Greenberg 343 P.3d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
( ); vacated on other grounds, Jordan v. Arizona, 438 U.S. 911, 98 S.Ct.
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
the defendant has so affected his present capacity that he is unable to appreciate the nature of the proceedings or to assist his counsel in conducting his defense.” STATE v. YOUNG Decision of the Court 1260, 1270 (1990) (
State v. Monfeli 330 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Monfeli 330 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
277 , ); , (“The basic rule of equal protection in criminal cases is that no person should be subject to a greater or different punishment than another in similar circumstances.”).
State v. Creasey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Creasey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Steelman, 120 Ariz. 301, 319
Flores v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. 178 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Flores v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. 178 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
In Re Miguel R. 63 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In Re Miguel R. 63 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(“The basic rule of equal protection in criminal cases is that no person should be subject to a greater or different punishment than another in similar circumstances.”) (emphasis added); , (“It is settled law that any one p
State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Talmadge 999 P.2d 192 Ariz. 2000
State v. Talmadge 999 P.2d 192 Ariz. 2000
State v. Arner 988 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Arner 988 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(applying post-conviction change in evidentiary rule to affirm admission of evidence that was inadmissible under rule in effect at time of trial).
State v. Strayhand 911 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1992
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1992
(ex post facto clause does not apply to changes in rules of evidence, whether statutory or court made).
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
Examinations into competency focus “on an extremely narrow issue: whether whatever is afflicting the defendant has so affected his present capacity that he is unable to appreciate the nature of the proceedings or to assist his counsel in conducting his defense.”
State v. Staatz 768 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1988
State v. Staatz 768 P.2d 143 Ariz. 1988
State v. Williams 800 P.2d 1240 Ariz. 1987
State v. Williams 800 P.2d 1240 Ariz. 1987
State v. Jensen 735 P.2d 781 Ariz. 1987
State v. Jensen 735 P.2d 781 Ariz. 1987
The standard of review in Arizona for the grant or denial of surrebuttal evidence by a
State v. Hudson 730 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1986
State v. Hudson 730 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1986
State v. Superior Court, Pima County 719 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Superior Court, Pima County 719 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
262 (1884); , (changes in admissibility of evidence do not lead to ex post facto violation.)
State v. Leonard 725 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Leonard 725 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
the court held that constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws do not apply to changes in rules of evidence, whether statutory or court-made.
Appeal in Pima County Mental Health Case No. MH 1717-1-85 721 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986