Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gillies, 691 P.2d 655.

104 citing documents.

State v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Flores Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Flores Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Vanleer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Vanleer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶6 “Where a sentence is within the permissible statutory limits, it will not be modified or reduced on appeal unless it clearly appears excessive under the circumstances.” ( 462, P.2d 87, 89 (1970)).
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
State v. Womble 235 P.3d 244 Ariz. 2010
11 -12, -67 (1984)); (killing five-year-old daughter “for no reason other than to eliminate her as a witness” to her mother’s murder supports finding of depravity); (recognizing witness elimination as supporting finding of heinousness or depravity).
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
(commenting that “[t]he better practice, in cases like this of multiple counts, is to set out the aggravating and mitigating factors for each separate count”).
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
(defendant found religion in prison and ministered to other inmates); State v. Gillies (II), , (becoming religious, showing remorse, and being a placid prisoner was mitigating).
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 655 , 832 P.2d at 672 ; State v. Gillies (II)
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
See, , (extensive and prolonged participation discounts defendant’s young age of eighteen years and impulsivity); , (extensive criminal history and planning undermines claim of age seventeen as mitigating); , (impact of defendant’s age twenty minimized by extent and duration of defendant’s participation in murder).
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
State v. Dickens 926 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1996
See, , appeal after remand, , cert.
State v. Kemp 912 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1996
State v. Kemp 912 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1996
Evidence about “[a] victim’s certainty or uncertainty as to his or her ultimate fate can be indicative of cruelty and heinousness.”
State v. Hardwick 905 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Hardwick 905 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
This court will not disturb a trial court’s decision to impose an aggravated sentence if there were “sufficient and appropriate aggravating factors to justify imposition of maximum sentences.” , cert.
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
State v. Williams 904 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1995
appeal after remand, , cert.
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
State v. Stokley 898 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
State v. Barreras 892 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1995
State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
State v. Ross 886 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1994
King, 180 Ariz. at 286 , 883 P.2d at 1042 ; Greenway, 170 Ariz. at 167 , 823 P.2d at 34 ; Stanley, 167 Ariz. at 528 , 809 P.2d at 953 ; , , cert.
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
State v. King 883 P.2d 1024 Ariz. 1994
Greenway, 170 Ariz. at 174 , 823 P.2d at 41 ( , , , did not hold that killing merely to eliminate a witness was an aggravating circumstance).
State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
12-14-90, p. 4) are nothing but the “hodge-podge” disapproved by this court in State v. Gillies, [ -73 , -64 (1984)].
State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
State v. Rudi Apelt 861 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1993
State v. Rudi Apelt 861 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1993
(mandatory nature of Arizona’s capital sentencing structure is constitutional because defendant may raise *373 any relevant factor in mitigation), cert.
State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
(mandatory nature of Arizona’s capital sentencing structure is constitutional because defendant may raise any relevant factor in mitigation), cert.
State v. Fisher 859 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1993
State v. Fisher 859 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1993
§ 13-703(G)(1)); , cert.
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993