Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tresize, 623 P.2d 1.

62 citing documents.

State v. MacIas 469 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. MacIas 469 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
at 361–62 (citation was to the wrong statute but no showing of prejudice); (indictment failed to cite an enhancement section but “no resulting prejudice or surprise from the omission”); (the error was a “technical defect .
State of Arizona v. Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuela 352 P.3d 917 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuela 352 P.3d 917 Ariz. 2015
athwaite, 432 U.S. at 114–16; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199–201; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442–43 (1969); Simmons, 390 U.S. at 385–86; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987); see also State v. Cañez, ¶ 48, Lehr, 201 Ariz. at 521 ¶¶ 49–51, 38 P.3d at 1184; –75, –5 (1980); Dessureault, 104 Ariz. at 384–85, 453 P.2d at 955–56.
State of Arizona v. David J. Waller 333 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. David J. Waller 333 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
“Single person identifications are inherently suggestive,” but are nevertheless admissible “if the identification is reliable notwithstanding the suggestiveness,”
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin 310 P.3d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(jury’s finding of guilt on armed robbery charge necessarily involved conclusion defendant committed dangerous offense).
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
(finding sufficient notice for enhancement for use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument based on allegations in indictment, although there was no separate allegation or statutory citation).
State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Nathan Andres Leyvas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See Lehr, ¶¶ 48-52, 38 P.3d at 1184; Nieto, 118 Ariz. at 605- 06, 578 P.2d at 1034-35 (although no Dessureault hearing, appellate court evaluated Biggers factors to determine reliability of identification at pretrial hearing); -75, -5 (1980).
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
§ 13- 703(F)(2) aggravating circumstance of prior conviction of crime involving violence); (under prior version of § 13-1904, 1997 Ariz. Sess.
State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
numerated in § 13-702(C)(1) through (C)(18) or a specific statutory ground for enhancement.3 Thus, the chief 3 P.2d 960 (1981) (injury inflicted during aggravated assault with knife supported sentence enhancement for dangerous-nature offense, § 13-604, and aggravated sentence for serious bodily injury, § 13-702(C)(1)); P.2d 1 (1980) (use of gun elevated offense from class four felony (robbery) to class two (armed robbery) and supported sentence enhancement for dangerous-nature offense, § 13-604(
State v. Lara 830 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1992
State v. Lara 830 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1992
State v. Burge 804 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1990
State v. Burge 804 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1990
State v. Garcia 799 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Garcia 799 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
(not double jeopardy to use a deadly weapon both to classify the crime as a more serious felony and to enhance the sentence); , (not double jeopardy or double punishment to consider an element of the crime for more than one purpose when determining pu
State v. Orduno 769 P.2d 1010 Ariz. 1989
State v. Orduno 769 P.2d 1010 Ariz. 1989
P.2d 1 (1980) (not double jeopardy to use a deadly weapon both to classify the crime as a more serious felony and to enhance the sentence); P.2d 279 (1980) (not double jeopardy or double punishment to consider an element of the crime for more than one purpose when determining puni
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
State v. Escalante 714 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Escalante 714 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
holding that the only prerequisite to the imposition of an aggravated sentence is compliance with § 13-702(C), requiring that the trial court set forth in the record factual findings and reasons in support of a sentence above or below the presumptive term.
State v. Cannon 713 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1985
State v. Cannon 713 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1985
State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
State v. Smith 707 P.2d 289 Ariz. 1985
2243, 2253 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977)
State v. Thomas 714 P.2d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Thomas 714 P.2d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
State v. Caldera 688 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1984
State v. Caldera 688 P.2d 642 Ariz. 1984
State v. Moya 683 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Moya 683 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Morales 679 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Morales 679 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Ashelman 671 P.2d 901 Ariz. 1983
State v. Ashelman 671 P.2d 901 Ariz. 1983
where we allowed similar testimony, and held that the discretion of the trial court will only be overturned upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion.
State v. Grilz 666 P.2d 1059 Ariz. 1983
State v. Grilz 666 P.2d 1059 Ariz. 1983
State v. Miller 658 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Miller 658 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
and that the verdict of the jury does not necessarily include a finding that the defendant knowingly or intentionally caused serious physical injury to the victim