Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gordon, 610 P.2d 59.
- 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
428 n. 2, , 62 n. 2 (1980) (holding remedy for Boykin violation is not reduction in sentence but either setting aside guilty plea as unintelligent or remand to determine if defendant was properly advised of possible sentences); see also Ariz. R.Crim.
- Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
- State v. Howard 785 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
- State v. Howard 785 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
- State v. Muldoon 767 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1988
- Distinguished State v. Muldoon 767 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1988
- State v. Griffin 713 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1986
- State v. Griffin 713 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1986
- State v. Meeker 693 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1984
-
State v. Meeker
693 P.2d 911
Ariz. 1984
(trial judge’s familiarity with presentence report and proffering reasons why acts committed by defendant warrant consecutive sentences sufficient).
- State v. Thomas 688 P.2d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
- State v. Thomas 688 P.2d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
- 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
- State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
- State v. LeMaster 669 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- State v. LeMaster 669 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- State v. Williams 656 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- State v. Williams 656 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- State v. Ramos 648 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1982
- State v. Ramos 648 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1982
- State v. Berry 650 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- State v. Berry 650 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- State v. McVay 641 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1982
- State v. McVay 641 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1982
- State v. Wesley 640 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1982
- State v. Wesley 640 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1982
- State v. Wilson 638 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1981
-
State v. Wilson
638 P.2d 1342
Ariz. 1981
The state now argues that although the plea agreement only refers to the sentence of life imprison *99 ment for the first degree murder charge, and fails to address any sentence for theft, the “defendant must be presumed to have been aware of the obvious consequences from two crimes even though the offenses are related.” , to support this proposition.
- State v. McGuire 638 P.2d 1339 Ariz. 1981
- State v. McGuire 638 P.2d 1339 Ariz. 1981
- State v. Rogowski 634 P.2d 387 Ariz. 1981
- State v. Denney 634 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1981
- State v. Denney 634 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1981
-
State v. Rogowski
634 P.2d 387
Ariz. 1981
State v. Tinghitella, supra.
- 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. Limpus 625 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- State v. Limpus 625 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981