Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Mahler, 626 P.2d 593.

35 citing documents.

State v. Giardini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Giardini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See Cecena, 235 Ariz. at 626 ¶ 10; (awarding defendant credit for time spent in out-of-state custody awaiting extradition because he was held solely on Arizona charges) (denying credit for out-of-state incarceration because “that time was spent in custody on a Utah charge”) and Horrisber
State v. Wheaton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Wheaton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(finding defendant entitled to credit for time spent in custody awaiting extradition from Nevada after arrest as a fugitive from justice); (finding no entitlement to credit for time spent in custody in another state because of a charge in that other sta
State v. Bartels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Bartels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Pringle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Pringle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
[shall] be credited against the term of imprisonment.” Out-of-state custody counts toward an Arizona sentence if the incarceration was “pursuant to an arrest for an Arizona offense.” (citing Walsh v. State ex rel.
State v. Tran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Tran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State of Arizona v. David Soto Cecena 334 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. David Soto Cecena 334 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Olcan 61 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Olcan 61 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1999
State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. McClure 938 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. McClure 938 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(in requiring credit for time served pursuant to an Arizona offense, “[t]he statute makes no distinction between out-of-state and in-state custody”).
State v. Mattson 376 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1985
State v. Brown 348 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1984
State v. Holstun 677 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Holstun 677 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
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. Horrisberger 653 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Horrisberger 653 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
is inapposite since no local charges were involved in that case and all time in custody out of state was because of the Arizona fugitive warrant.
State v. Williams 641 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Williams 641 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Rosu 640 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Rosu 640 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
§ 13-709(B) under different issues, , (a defendant is entitled to credit for out-of-state custodial time).
State v. Gannon 638 P.2d 206 Ariz. 1981
State v. Gannon 638 P.2d 206 Ariz. 1981
he circumstances alleged to be in aggravation or mitigation of the crime are found to be true by the trial judge upon any evidence or information introduced or submitted to the court prior to sentencing or any evidence previously heard by the judge at the trial, and factual findings and reasons in support of such findings are set forth on the record at the time of sentencing.” , we stated: “A.R.S.