Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hankins, 686 P.2d 740.

54 citing documents.

State v. Samia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Samia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
("[R]emaining unlawfully in a residence with the intent to commit an 5 STATE v. SAMIA Decision of the Court assault is a burglary and the burglary warrants a felony murder charge.").
State v. Servin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Servin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“It is clearly within the sound discretion of the prosecutor to determine whether to file charges and which charges to file.”); (noting a guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defenses).
State v. Lowery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Lowery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(same standard applies to a Rule 32.1(e) claim and a post-trial motion to vacate the judgment or obtain a new trial based on newly discovered evidence); United States v. Shelton, 459 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1972) (holding that the discovery of a change to a legal standard is not “newly discovered evidenc
State of Arizona v. Justin Alexander Copeland 509 P.3d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State of Arizona v. Justin Alexander Copeland 509 P.3d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
Benderra v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Benderra v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
But the prosecutor has broad discretion in deciding whether to charge a defendant, ¶ 8 (App. 2017) (), and “[t]he mere fact that charges were dismissed, of course, does not itself prove the alleged crimes did not occur, just as an acquittal does not establish a defendant’s innocence,” Mohajerin, 226 Ariz. at 110 n.6, ¶ 23 (citing United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 361 (1984), an
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Villela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Villela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
STATE EX REL. BRANNAN v. Williams 171 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
STATE EX REL. BRANNAN v. Williams 171 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(“[T]he executive branch has the power to decide what criminal charges to file.”); , (“It is clearly within the sound discretion of the prosecutor to determine whether to file charges and which charges to file.”).
State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
P. 8 are calculated from the case that has the longest period available.”
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
See Essman, 98 Ariz. at 235-36 , 403 P.2d at 545 ; , -96 , -42 (1981); -91 , -15 (1974).
State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
Distinguished State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
Lopez cites three Arizona cases in support of his merger argument, , , and State v. Essman, supra, which we find distinguishable.
State v. Tsosie 832 P.2d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Tsosie 832 P.2d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Williams 813 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Williams 813 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Lewis 816 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Lewis 816 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
the defendants were charged with and convicted of first degree murder and second degree burglary.
State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Rigsby 772 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1989
State v. Rigsby 772 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1989
State v. Rodriguez 761 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Rodriguez 761 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Hansen 751 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1988
State v. Hansen 751 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1988
State v. Smith 753 P.2d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Smith 753 P.2d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
1133 , 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980)
State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
State v. LaGrand 734 P.2d 563 Ariz. 1987
The decision of whether and with what crime to charge a suspect is within the sound discretion of the prosecutor, , including whether to seek the death penalty.
State v. Moran 728 P.2d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Moran 728 P.2d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
at 3009 n. 16, 77 L.Ed.2d at 649 n. 16
State v. Jordan 697 P.2d 323 Ariz. 1985
State v. Jordan 697 P.2d 323 Ariz. 1985
See State v. Hankins & Satterfield