DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hauss, 681 P.2d 382.

32 citing documents.

  • State v. Pearsall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Pearsall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    at ¶ 16; (citations omitted) (holding that admission of documentary evidence is mandatory in most cases to prove prior convictions).
  • State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    and establish the defendant as the person to whom the document refers.” (-75 (1976), ); (identifying limited exceptions to the standard procedure outlined in Lee).
  • State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    and establish the defendant as the person to whom the document refers.” (-06 (1976)).
  • State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    3Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.
  • State of Arizona v. Javier Solis 338 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Javier Solis 338 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State v. Gonzales 314 P.3d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Gonzales 314 P.3d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    -32 , -84 (1984) (affirming sentence based on testimony of probation officer who had prepared a presentenee report in connection with prior convictions and was present when the prior judgments and sentences were entered and imposed, but holding that generally documentary evidence is necessary to e
  • State v. Morales 157 P.3d 479 Ariz. 2007
  • State v. Morales 157 P.3d 479 Ariz. 2007
    A prior conviction may be proved by other means, however, if “the state can show that its earnest and diligent attempts to procure the necessary documentation were unsuccessful for reasons beyond its control and that the evidence introduced in its stead is highly reliable.”
  • State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Miller 156 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Miller 156 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    P.2d 382 (1984), our supreme court addressed the same legal issue raised here.
  • 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
    Sufficiency of evidence to prove prior convictions ¶11 Robles next argues “[t]he allegation of prior convictions was not proven by sufficient evidence, resulting in fundamental error” and requiring that his enhanced sentences “be vacated, and the case remanded to the trial court for resentencing as a first offender.” P.2d 382 (1984), P.3d 609 (App. 2004), he argues “a certified copy of the conviction” is required to establish a prior conviction unless the state shows that it was unable to obtain
  • State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    (discussing proof required to establish prior convictions).
  • State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
  • State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Mark Anthony Cons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State v. Cons 94 P.3d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State of Arizona v. Mark Anthony Cons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State v. Cons 94 P.3d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State v. Marlow 786 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Marlow 786 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Hurley 741 P.2d 257 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Hurley 741 P.2d 257 Ariz. 1987