Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gooch, 678 P.2d 946.

42 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
(courts have no power to interfere with prosecutor’s exercise of discretion unless prosecutor is “acting illegally or in excess of his powers”).
State v. Gilmore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Gilmore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Lynam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Lynam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
P.3d 506, 508 (2001) (“Defining crimes and fixing punishments are functions of the legislature.”); (recognizing that “a mandatory sentence prescribed by the legislature is not an unconstitutional invasion of power of the judiciary” ( )); (“Choosing which offense to prosecute rests within the duty and discretion of the prosecutor.”).
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
947 (1984); ¶ 7 , -25, ¶ 13 , -74 (App.2008) (rejecting the charging documents test to determine whether two offenses áre the same for determining whether jeopardy attach
State of Arizona v. William John Fiihr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. William John Fiihr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
ts very nature, always a constituent part of the greater offense, or whether the charging document describes the lesser offense even though it does not always make up a constituent part of the greater offense.’” 4 -51 (App. 2006), -67, -48 (1984).
State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
3 whether an offense is ‘lesser-included’ is whether it is, by its very nature, always a constituent part of the greater offense, or whether the charging document describes the lesser offense even though it does not always make up a constituent part of the greater offense.” -67, -48 (1984)
State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Sucharew 66 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
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
In Re Victoria K. 11 P.3d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Victoria K. 11 P.3d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
-08, ¶ 5 , -41 (App.1999); -67 , -48 (1984).
State v. Brown 986 P.2d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Brown 986 P.2d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
22, 1998); -67 , -48 (1984) (enunciating test for lesser-included offense).
State v. Corona 932 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Corona 932 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
such an instruction is warranted if (1) the included offense is always a constituent part of the greater offense or (2) if the charging document described the lesser offense even though it would not always form a constituent part of the greater offense.
State v. Bass 911 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Bass 911 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
1 The lesser-ineluded offense issue is squarely presented in this case and will be decided by answering the following question: “can the [greater] offense, as described by statute, or as charged, ‘be committed without necessarily committing the lesser.’ ” -67 , -48 (1984) (citations omitted).
State v. Magana 874 P.2d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Magana 874 P.2d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
State v. Garcia 860 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Garcia 860 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 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. Woods 815 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Woods 815 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
366, citing In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-75755
State v. Kozan 706 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Kozan 706 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
§ 13-1503(A) reads as follows: “A person commits criminal trespass in the second degree by knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in or on any nonresidential structure or in any fenced commercial yard.” , discussed the procedure for determining whether an offense is a lesser-included offense.
State v. Ennis 689 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Ennis 689 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Amarillas 688 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1984
State v. Amarillas 688 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1984