Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Herrera, 588 P.2d 305.
- State v. Chavez 693 P.2d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
-
State v. Chavez
693 P.2d 936
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
the defendant contends that there is, at best, only a tenuous connection between the five years probation he was ordered to serve and the consecutive ten year sentences eventually imposed.
- State v. B Bar Enterprises, Inc. 649 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1982
-
State v. B Bar Enterprises, Inc.
649 P.2d 978
Ariz. 1982
“In order to possess standing to assert a constitutional challenge, an individual must himself have suffered ‘some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action.’ ”
- State v. Mendibles 629 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- State v. Mendibles 629 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- State v. Watkins 614 P.2d 835 Ariz. 1980
- State v. Watkins 614 P.2d 835 Ariz. 1980
- State v. Gordon 610 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1980
- State v. Gordon 610 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1980
- State v. Herrera 599 P.2d 214 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Herrera 599 P.2d 214 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Salazar 595 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
-
State v. Salazar
595 P.2d 196
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
makes clear that the preclusion of Rule 32.2 will be enforced except in exceptional circumstances.