Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tison, 633 P.2d 355.

264 citing documents.

State v. Gurule Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gurule Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
DISCUSSION ¶9 We review the sufficiency of evidence “in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction[.]”
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dickenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
DISCUSSION ¶8 We review the sufficiency of evidence “in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction.”
State v. Dickenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(In reviewing for sufficiency of the evidence, “[t]he test to be applied is whether there is substantial evidence to support a guilty verdict.”).
State v. Day Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Day Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(sufficiency of the evidence hinges on whether substantial evidence supports the verdict).
State v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
DISCUSSION ¶10 We review the sufficiency of evidence “in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction[.]”
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(In reviewing for sufficiency of evidence, “[t]he test to be applied is whether there is substantial evidence to support a guilty verdict.”).
State v. Zamorano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Zamorano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(In reviewing for sufficiency of evidence, “[t]he test to be applied is whether there is substantial evidence to support a guilty verdict.”).
State v. Garth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Garth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(In reviewing for sufficiency of evidence, “[t]he test to be applied is whether there is substantial evidence to support a guilty verdict.”).
Tamarra P. v. Dcs, M.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Tamarra P. v. Dcs, M.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
And “proof of ineffectiveness must be a demonstrable reality not merely a matter of speculation.”
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(In reviewing for sufficiency of evidence, “[t]he test to be applied is whether there is substantial evidence to support a guilty verdict.”).
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(In reviewing for sufficiency of evidence, “[t]he test to be applied is whether there is substantial evidence to support a guilty verdict.”).
State v. Harrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Harrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Davignon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Davignon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(In reviewing for sufficiency of evidence, “[t]he test to be applied is whether there is substantial evidence to support a guilty verdict.”).
State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(In reviewing for sufficiency of evidence, “[t]he test to be applied is whether there is substantial evidence to support a guilty verdict.”).
State v. Merrill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Merrill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(In reviewing for sufficiency of evidence, “[t]he test to be applied is whether there is substantial evidence to support a guilty verdict.”).
State v. Muhammad Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Muhammad Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
1 We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction[s].”
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(In reviewing for sufficiency of evidence, “[t]he test to be applied is whether there is substantial evidence to support a guilty verdict.”).
State v. Pino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Pino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
2 We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction.”
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
1 We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction.”
State v. Ales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
3 STATE v. ALES Decision of the Court 293
State v. Beasley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Beasley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(evidence is sufficient when a rational trier of fact could find that it supports a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).
State v. Beucler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Beucler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
1 We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction[s].”
State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶4 Gomez was charged with possession of a dangerous drug (methamphetamine), a class four felony, and possession of drug 1 We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction.”