Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Marquez, 618 P.2d 592.

49 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
§ 13-603(A); , (“[D]e-fining crimes and appropriate sanctions for those who commit them is a legislative function.”); cf. A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
§ 13- 603(A); (“[D]efining crimes and appropriate sanctions for those who commit them is a legislative function.”); cf. A.R.S.
McKaney v. Foreman 100 P.3d 18 Ariz. 2004
McKaney v. Foreman 100 P.3d 18 Ariz. 2004
This court has held, pursuant to state due process requirements, that a charging document must “fairly indieate[] the crime charged; state[] the essential elements of the alleged crime; and [be] sufficiently definite to apprise the defendant so that he can prepare his defense to the charge.” , ( , ).
Galaz v. Stewart 88 P.3d 166 Ariz. 2004
Galaz v. Stewart 88 P.3d 166 Ariz. 2004
¶8 The governor has the power to grant pardons or commute sentences, but only “upon such conditions and with such restrictions and limitations as may be provided by law.” Ariz. Const. art. 5, § 5
State v. Montoya 65 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
McDonald v. Thomas 40 P.3d 819 Ariz. 2002
McDonald v. Thomas 40 P.3d 819 Ariz. 2002
-04, -98 (1980); 147 P. 738, 741 (1915) (limitation of governor’s pardon power to cases recommended by board of pardons does not violate Ariz.Const.
State v. Miranda 22 P.3d 506 Ariz. 2001
Followed State v. Miranda 22 P.3d 506 Ariz. 2001
Wigglesworth v. Mauldin 990 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Wigglesworth v. Mauldin 990 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(interpreting Ariz. Const. art. 5, § 5).
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Cty., No. Jv-508801 901 P.2d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Cty., No. Jv-508801 901 P.2d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
“Defining crimes and fixing penalties are legislative, not judicial functions.” , (citing State v. Marquez , , ).
State v. Stine 906 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Stine 906 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
-03 , -97 (1980) (provisions of mandatory sentencing term without possibility of probation, parole or commutation does not unconstitutionally limit executive powers under Article 5, Section 5); , (no invasion of executive domain under Ar
State v. Ramsey 831 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Ramsey 831 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Lyons 804 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1990
Criticized State v. Lyons 804 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1990
State v. Wagstaff 794 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1990
State v. Wagstaff 794 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1990
State v. Dykes 789 P.2d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Dykes 789 P.2d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Waits 786 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Waits 786 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
The court held that “defining crimes and appropriate sanctions for those who commit them is a legislative function.” State v. Faunt, 139 Ariz. at 113 , 677 P.2d at 276
State v. Prentiss 786 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1989
State v. Prentiss 786 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1989
State v. Berger 790 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Berger 790 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
the defendant argued that A.R.S.
State v. Cummings 716 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Cummings 716 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Meeker 693 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1984
State v. Meeker 693 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1984
(not ineffective assistance of counsel where attorney interviewed eyewitnesses whom he did not call because they told him conflicting stories that could not exculpate defendant), or that he knew would commit perjury.
State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
State v. McNair 687 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1984
at 3009, n. 16 , 77 L.Ed.2d at 649, n. 16
State v. Faunt 677 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1984
State v. Faunt 677 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1984
"defining crimes and appropriate sanctions for those who commit them is a legislative function."
State v. Britson 636 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1981
State v. Britson 636 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1981
we have not retreated from the rule that a conviction will be reversed because of ineffective assistance of counsel only if “the representation by a defendant’s lawyer was so ineffective that the proceedings were reduced to a farce, sham or mockery of justice.”
State v. Cruz 617 P.2d 1149 Ariz. 1980
State v. Cruz 617 P.2d 1149 Ariz. 1980
State v. Barnett 617 P.2d 1132 Ariz. 1980
State v. Fears 617 P.2d 763 Ariz. 1980
State v. Fears 617 P.2d 763 Ariz. 1980
We have recently considered this argument in two cases, , , in which it was found that § 13-1206 did not inflict cruel and unusual punishment.
State v. Barnett 617 P.2d 1132 Ariz. 1980
we determined that A.R.S.