Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bly, 621 P.2d 279.

158 citing documents.

State v. Torres 750 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Torres 750 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Willcoxson 751 P.2d 1385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Willcoxson 751 P.2d 1385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Pacheco 730 P.2d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Pacheco 730 P.2d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Germain 723 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Germain 723 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
allowing an element of a crime to be used as an aggravating factor under A.R.S.
State v. Thurlow 712 P.2d 929 Ariz. 1986
State v. Thurlow 712 P.2d 929 Ariz. 1986
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Perkins 699 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1985
State v. Perkins 699 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1985
(retribution is one of the policies underlying our criminal code); Cf. A.R.S.
State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
we addressed a similar claim in a non-capital case.
State v. Rodriquez 700 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Rodriquez 700 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Kerr 690 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Kerr 690 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Torrez 687 P.2d 1292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Torrez 687 P.2d 1292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Avila 686 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Avila 686 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Harding 687 P.2d 1247 Ariz. 1984
State v. Harding 687 P.2d 1247 Ariz. 1984
State v. Buchholz 678 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Buchholz 678 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
§ 13-604(H) has been "reviewed and upheld on several occasions by the courts of this state
State v. Just 675 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Just 675 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Towns 667 P.2d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Towns 667 P.2d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
§ 13-702 to enhance the sentence beyond that provided by the legislature, , it is not required to do so.
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
(court could consider use of deadly weapon to enhance sentence under § 13-604 and to find aggravation under § 13-702).
State v. Geschwind 666 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Geschwind 666 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Davis 654 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Davis 654 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
the Arizona Supreme Court addressed the issue as it related to robbery with a deadly weapon: “If the presence of a deadly weapon, as an element of the crime or otherwise, moves the legislature to impose more severe punishment for the offense, we must abide by the legislative determination, [citat
State v. Rybolt 650 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Rybolt 650 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
and we have no authority to rule on them further.
State v. Barrett 644 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1982
State v. Barrett 644 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1982
State v. Gutierrez 634 P.2d 960 Ariz. 1981
State v. Gutierrez 634 P.2d 960 Ariz. 1981
Subsequent to the filing of the briefs in the instant case
State v. Jackson 635 P.2d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Jackson 635 P.2d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Inglish, Ariz.App.
State v. Martinez 634 P.2d 7 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Martinez 634 P.2d 7 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Appellant’s , where it was held that use of a deadly weapon during the commission of a crime could be considered both to enhance punishment under A.R.S.
State v. Inglish 631 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Inglish 631 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981