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. Lelevier, 567 P.2d 783.

32 citing documents.

  • State v. Santillanes 522 P.3d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Santillanes 522 P.3d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    See Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 246 (1981) (“The need to restrict appeals by the prosecutor reflect[s] a prudential concern that individuals should be free from the harassment and vexation of unbounded litigation by the sovereign.”); (“[A]ppeals by the 3 STATE v. SANTILLANES Opinion of the Court government in criminal matters historically have not been favored, and in the absence of a constitutional provision or statute clearly conferring th
  • State v. Hon gordon/gerow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Hon gordon/gerow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    § 13- 4032(6) that would grant the State the right to a direct appeal on “any court ruling which sustains an objection to evidence before, during or after trial”) (), ¶ 6 (App. 2015) (concluding an order denying the State’s motions was not an order “granting a motion to suppress the use of evidence” and therefore not appealable under A.R.S.
  • State v. Reyes 360 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Reyes 360 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    “[Ajppeals by the government in criminal matters historically have not been favored, and in the absence of a constitutional provision or statute clearly conferring that right, such an appeal cannot be taken.”
  • State v. Roper 236 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State v. Roper 236 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    which it said “squarely addressed” the issue, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the order appealed from did not constitute “[a]n order granting a motion to suppress.” Id.
  • State of Arizona v. Anthony Sanchez Bejarano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • State of Arizona v. Anthony Sanchez Bejarano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    it interpreted the scope 2 of A.R.S.
  • State v. Dawson 792 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Dawson 792 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Rodriguez 773 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Rodriguez 773 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    Appellee claims that the motion granted was not a motion to suppress evidence, and the state can only proceed by way of special action in this matter
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Crawford 767 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Crawford 767 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232 , 101 S.Ct.
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Gerber 766 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1988
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Gerber 766 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1988
  • Litak v. Scott 676 P.2d 631 Ariz. 1984
  • Litak v. Scott 676 P.2d 631 Ariz. 1984
    We believe that while the state has a right to dismiss a matter pending appeal and await the outcome of the appeal before filing another complaint, if allowable, , the state does not have the right to appeal an order granting its own motion to dismiss.
  • State v. Coury 625 P.2d 360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Coury 625 P.2d 360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    In Million , the suggested procedure of the State dismissing the prosecution under rule 16.5 , that the defendant should not be left sitting in jail indefinitely waiting for the Damoclean sword of prosecution to fall.
  • State v. Little 590 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Little 590 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1979
    that the police may approach individuals for the purpose of investigation where there is “a reasonable suspicion * * * that ‘some activity out of the ordinary’ is or had occurred, some suggestion to connect the detained person with the unusual activity, and some indication that the activity is r
  • State v. Woods 589 P.2d 430 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Woods 589 P.2d 430 Ariz. 1979
    we cited language from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct.
  • State v. 1969 Volkswagon Bus, Vin 239199800, 1977 Wyoming License No. 2365J 586 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. 1969 Volkswagon Bus, Vin 239199800, 1977 Wyoming License No. 2365J 586 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Million 583 P.2d 897 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Million 583 P.2d 897 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Schutte 573 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Schutte 573 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 , 92 S.Ct.