Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Mulalley, 618 P.2d 586.

60 citing documents.

State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
at 492 , 794 P.2d at 125 (“Proscribing conduct and determining appropriate sanctions for those who deviate from the accepted norms of conduct is purely a legislative function.”); , (“The judiciary ...
State v. Zimmer 874 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Zimmer 874 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
overruled on other grounds, P.2d 1228 (1987).
State v. Garcia 860 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Garcia 860 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
at 2707 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (threshold inquiry is whether a “comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross disproportionality”); , (to find statutorily mandated sentence cruel and unusual, court must determine if it offends “perceptions of decency ...
State Ex Rel. Bowers v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. Bowers v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Bartlett 830 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1992
State v. Bartlett 830 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1992
State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Barger 810 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Noriega, 142 Ariz. at 487 , 690 P.2d at 788
State v. Wise 795 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Wise 795 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hindt v. State, 421 A.2d 1325, 1333 (Del.Super.Ct.1980); , (employing similar general language and upholding a mandatory life sentence for deadly assault by a prisoner).
Hamilton v. Municipal Court of Mesa 788 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hamilton v. Municipal Court of Mesa 788 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
overruled on other grounds, , (evaluating the proportionality of a criminal sanction).
State v. Swoopes 747 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Swoopes 747 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
require that his sentences be concurrent.
State v. Robinson 735 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1987
State v. Robinson 735 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1987
for the proposition that A.R.S.
State v. Dixon 735 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1987
State v. Dixon 735 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1987
State v. Henry 734 P.2d 93 Ariz. 1987
State v. Henry 734 P.2d 93 Ariz. 1987
State v. Devine 724 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Devine 724 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Perkins 699 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1985
State v. Perkins 699 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1985
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983)
State v. Adams 703 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Adams 703 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Johnson 693 P.2d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Johnson 693 P.2d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
i.e., whether the sentence offends the perceptions of contemporary society and whether it is proportionate to the type of crime.
State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
700 , 38 L.Ed.2d 618 (1974)
State v. Hankins 686 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1984
State v. Hankins 686 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1984
at 3011 , 77 L.Ed.2d at 650 ; , but expressly did not require extensive analysis with regard to every appeal raising the issue.
State v. Canaday 684 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Canaday 684 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Lujan 677 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Lujan 677 P.2d 1344 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Flores 682 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Flores 682 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
the court said that the crucial questions are whether *475 the sentence offends society’s perceptions of decency and whether it is out of proportion to the crime for which it is imposed.
State v. Thompson 674 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Thompson 674 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
700 , 38 L.Ed.2d 618 (1974)
State v. Nelson 639 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Nelson 639 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
His argument is based entirely on the recent opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court
State v. Sanchez 635 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Sanchez 635 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981