Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Davis, 582 P.2d 175.

45 citing documents.

Berndt v. Arizona Department of Corrections 363 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Berndt v. Arizona Department of Corrections 363 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶14 Second, while comment upon a defendant’s silence may be error, even constitutional error is not reversible if it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967).
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
We need not decide, however, whether § 42-12153(B) is more specific for these purposes than §§ 42-16201(A) and 42-15104 because this interpretive principle “applies only when there is a conflict between the specific and the general law.”
State v. Botkin 200 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Botkin 200 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 26 , (“we give preference to specific statutory provisions over general ones”); State v. Davis, 119 Ariz. *471 529, 534 , (“The principle that the specific law is controlling over the general applies only when there is a conflict between the specific and the general law.” (citation omitted)).
State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(observing “specific law is controlling over the general”).
State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
-35 , -81 (1978) (statutes authorized both prison and jail sentences as conditions of probation); , (statute mandates six-month prison sentence as condition of probation for felony DUI conviction)
State v. Womack 847 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Downing 831 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Downing 831 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Tucson Unified School District v. Chicago Title Insurance 804 P.2d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Tucson Unified School District v. Chicago Title Insurance 804 P.2d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Cochise County v. Borowiec 781 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Cochise County v. Borowiec 781 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Baker v. Gardner 770 P.2d 766 Ariz. 1989
Baker v. Gardner 770 P.2d 766 Ariz. 1989
Berry v. State, Dept. of Corrections 699 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Berry v. State, Dept. of Corrections 699 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Didlo v. Talley, 21 Ariz.App.
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 677 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
City of Phoenix v. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty. 677 P.2d 1283 Ariz. 1984
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 677 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
City of Phoenix v. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty. 677 P.2d 1283 Ariz. 1984
State v. Oppenheimer 673 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Oppenheimer 673 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Benally 669 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Benally 669 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
(statute requiring mandatory thirty to sixty day prison term for conviction of assault with a deadly weapon without a gun, not found to prevent trial court from also imposing additional jail time as a condition of probation under predecessor to A.R.S.
Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen's Foundation 637 P.2d 1053 Ariz. 1981
Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen's Foundation 637 P.2d 1053 Ariz. 1981
Galaz v. Carruth 631 P.2d 523 Ariz. 1981
Galaz v. Carruth 631 P.2d 523 Ariz. 1981
There being a conflict in the rules, the specific will prevail over the general, , and Rule 32.5(b) is controlling.
State v. Seats 638 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Seats 638 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Verive 627 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Verive 627 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Tinghitella, supra.
State v. Sanchez 627 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Sanchez 627 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
The state’s , is misplaced.
State v. Gordon 610 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1980
State v. Gordon 610 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1980
* * * ” We consider defendants’ actions separate offenses, albeit closely related, and not “an act or omission which is made punishable in different ways.”
State v. Love 598 P.2d 976 Ariz. 1979
State v. Love 598 P.2d 976 Ariz. 1979
2406 , 49 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976)