DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Perkins, 699 P.2d 364.

52 citing documents.

  • State v. Agyepong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Agyepong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    However, both the Arizona Supreme Court and this court have “rejected the notion that a scheme to commit multiple crimes in order to make money is a single criminal objective, even when some Kelly factors are present.” ¶ 11 (App. 2014); –97 5 STATE v. AGYEPONG Decision of the Court (1985), –88 (1987).
  • State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    the accomplices apparently did not form the intent to proceed to a new robbery until after completing the prior robbery[, and t]he additional criminal incidents were not necessary to complete either the initial robbery encounter or to escape afterward” and “[d]ifferent evidence was used to prove each robbery incident.” 597, 370 (1985)
  • State of Arizona v. Dominic Rodolpho Flores 335 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Dominic Rodolpho Flores 335 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    cover officer same day); (forgery offenses not committed on same occasion when defendant presented forged checks at different banks on same day); -86, -30 (1987) (kidnapping leading to sexual assault committed on same occasion when offenses spanned thirty minutes); -97, -70 (1985) (robberies committed against distinct victims involving different property within ninety-minute window in same area not committed on same occasion), overruled on other grounds by Noble, 152 Ariz. at 288, 731 P.2d at 12
  • State of Arizona v. Mikal Omar Rasul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Mikal Omar Rasul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    [must be] very brief’”), 597, 370 (1985), overruled on other grounds by Noble, 152 Ariz. at 288, 731 P.2d at 1232 (crimes that 12 occurred in different places within one-and-one-half hours of each other did not occur on same occasion).
  • State v. Kelly 950 P.2d 1153 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Kelly 950 P.2d 1153 Ariz. 1997
    at 84, 876 P.2d at 580 (citing Shulark, 162 Ariz. at 485 , 784 P.2d at 691 ; Henry, 152 Ariz. at 612 , 734 P.2d at 97 ; -97 , -70 (1985), overruled on other grounds by Noble, 152 Ariz. at 288, 731 P.2d at 1232 ).
  • State v. Sheppard 876 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Sheppard 876 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1994
    As this court has repeatedly stated, there is no all-encompassing test for determining whether two offenses constitute the “same occasion.” Shulark, 162 Ariz. at 485 , 784 P.2d at 691 ; , -97 , -70 (1985), overruled on other grounds by Noble, 152 Ariz. at 288, 731 P.2d at 1232 (providing extensive discussion of various tests used in determining what constitutes “same occasion”).
  • Achen-Gardner, Inc. v. Superior Court 809 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Achen-Gardner, Inc. v. Superior Court 809 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    Section 34-221(A) states “the agent shall enter into a contract with the lowest responsible bidder whose proposal is satisfactory.” The Arizona Supreme Court has declared “it is the duty of this court to adopt a construction of a statutory provision which reconciles it with other statutes where such a reasonable harmonizing interpretation is available.”
  • State v. Williams 819 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Williams 819 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
    Simply because crimes follow one another does not make them a “spree.” , overruled on other grounds, , , (multiple felonies committed against police during hostage/barricade situation).
  • State v. Lammie 793 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Lammie 793 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Shulark 784 P.2d 688 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Shulark 784 P.2d 688 Ariz. 1989
    the defendant was convicted of nine counts of armed robbery and one count of aggravated assault in the same trial.
  • State v. Thomason 783 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Thomason 783 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    overruled on other grounds
  • Baker v. Gardner 770 P.2d 766 Ariz. 1989
  • Baker v. Gardner 770 P.2d 766 Ariz. 1989
    overruled on other grounds
  • State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
    § 13-604(H) , barring consecutive sentences for “spree” offenses arising from the same occasion.
  • State v. Swoopes 747 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Swoopes 747 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
    require that his sentences be concurrent.
  • State v. Hurley 741 P.2d 257 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Hurley 741 P.2d 257 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Vild 746 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Vild 746 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    overruled on other grounds, , our supreme court considered whether or not a number of robberies committed within a short period of time were committed on the “same occasion” within the meaning of A.R.S.
  • State v. Robinson 735 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Robinson 735 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1987
    for the proposition that A.R.S.
  • State v. Stuck 739 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Stuck 739 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    First, appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for “spree offenses,”
  • State v. Henry 734 P.2d 93 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Henry 734 P.2d 93 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Stein 735 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Stein 735 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    cited by defendant is inapposite.
  • State v. American Holiday Ass'n, Inc. 727 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. American Holiday Ass'n, Inc. 727 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1986
    § 13-104 instructs us to interpret penal statutes “according to the fair meaning of their terms to promote justice and effect the objects of the law, including the purposes stated in § 13-101.”
  • State v. Pacheco 730 P.2d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Pacheco 730 P.2d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), , and argues that the guidelines formulated in those cases do not support the sentence imposed in his case.
  • State v. Devine 724 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Devine 724 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Schneider 715 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Schneider 715 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    the supreme court surveyed the law.
  • State v. Lee 708 P.2d 102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Lee 708 P.2d 102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985