DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Valencia, 602 P.2d 807.

34 citing documents.

  • State v. Smith 50 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Smith 50 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Rogovich 932 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Rogovich 932 P.2d 794 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
    at 25 , 918 P.2d at 1043 ( , ).
  • State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
    Second, although this court has considered the age of an offender to be a substantial and relevant factor at sentencing, we have found “no constitutional authority or statutory provision [that] prohibits the sentencing of a 16-year-old to death.”
  • State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Emanuel 768 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Emanuel 768 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    This contention is based squarely on two Arizona Supreme Court cases:
  • McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1986
  • McElhanon v. Hing 728 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1986
    521 , 54 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984) -41 , -09 (1979) (relative of victim had private conversation with judge and urged imposition of death sentence; the judge told no one, no contemporaneous record was made, and the information imparted pertained to facts relevant to the sentencing procedure).
  • State v. Thompson 724 P.2d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • Distinguished State v. Thompson 724 P.2d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    cited by defendant, are readily distinguishable.
  • State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
    This case is not one like Leslie, supra, in which the trial judge solicited discussions with relatives of the victim before sentencing the defendant, , in which the judge discussed the case in his office with a relative of the victim the day before the scheduled resentencing.
  • State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
    While we will not allow purely “technical” arguments to constitute waiver of the right to a change of judge, , the imposition of a time limit by rule of this Court is not just a “technical” requirement.
  • State v. Gretzler 659 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Gretzler 659 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Valencia 645 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Valencia 645 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 335 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Mendibles 629 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • Distinguished State v. Mendibles 629 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    Appellant’s , is unfounded.
  • State v. Greenawalt 624 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Greenawalt 624 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Steelman 612 P.2d 475 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Steelman 612 P.2d 475 Ariz. 1980
    * * * Revelation of subsequent lawless acts of violence would help to attain the objectives of the sentencing statute.”