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. Pena, 683 P.2d 743.

56 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Edwardo Serrato III Ariz. 2025
  • State of Arizona v. Edwardo Serrato III Ariz. 2025
    But “absent ambiguity, the rule of lenity does not apply.” ¶ 9 (App. 2023); –50 (App. 1983) (noting that “where the statute itself is susceptible to more than one interpretation, the rule of lenity dictates that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the defendant”), aff’d, Scalia & Garner, supra ¶ 15, at 299 (noting that the rule of lenity applies only if “after all the legitimate tools of interpretation have been applied, ‘a reasonable doubt persists’”).
  • Whitestar v. Medmen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Whitestar v. Medmen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    (approving and adopting the “well[-]reasoned and correct” decision of the court below).
  • State of Arizona v. Kevin Artice Miles 414 P.3d 680 Ariz. 2018
  • State of Arizona v. Kevin Artice Miles 414 P.3d 680 Ariz. 2018
    –50 (App. 1983) (“[W]here the statute itself is susceptible to more than one interpretation, the rule of lenity dictates that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the defendant.”), approved and adopted by cf. A.R.S.
  • David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    And, if a statute remains unclear after considering those factors, “‘the rule of lenity dictates that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the defendant.’” -50, 6 -49 (App. 1983), aff’d, P.2d 743 (1984).
  • State v. Pena 104 P.3d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Pena 104 P.3d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    After weighing and balancing aggravating and mitigating factors, the sentencing judge may “impose a just sentence anywhere within the range authorized by statute.”
  • State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Rene A. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State of Arizona v. Rene A. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    If that endeavor nevertheless leaves a statute “‘susceptible to more than one interpretation, the rule of lenity dictates that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the defendant.’” -50, -49 (App. 1983), aff’d, P.2d 743 (1984).
  • State v. Fell 52 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Fell 52 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Ossana 18 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Ossana 18 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    e ¶ 13-901.01(G) is ambiguous as to whether preparatory offenses are included in its purview, we apply the rule of lenity, which “ ‘dictates that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the defendant.’ ” , -50 , -49 (App.1983) ( , ).
  • State v. Johnson 991 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Johnson 991 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    That rule applies only when a court determines that the language of a statute is “ ‘susceptible to more than one interpretation.’” Tarango, 185 Ariz. at 210 , 914 P.2d at 1302 , , approved
  • State v. Garcia 943 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Garcia 943 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    any doubt should be resolved in favor of the defendant.’ ” , (-50 , -49 (App.1983), decision approved and adopted, , ), affd on reh’g, State v. Arizona Dep’t of Corrections
  • State v. Tarango 914 P.2d 1300 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Tarango 914 P.2d 1300 Ariz. 1996
    When a statute is “susceptible to more than one interpretation, the rule of lenity dictates that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the defendant.” -50 , -49 (App.1983) ( , ); see Callanan v. United States, 364 U.S. 587, 596 , 81 S.Ct.
  • Zamora v. Superior Court 904 P.2d 1294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Zamora v. Superior Court 904 P.2d 1294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    “[W]here the statute itself is susceptible to more than one interpretation, the rule of lenity dictates that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the defendant.” -50 , -49 (App.1983) approved by , (citations omitted); , (rule of lenity mandates that doubts be resolved in defendant’s favor).
  • Reinesto v. Superior Court 894 P.2d 733 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Reinesto v. Superior Court 894 P.2d 733 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    Vo, 172 Ariz. at 200 , 836 P.2d at 413 ; -50 , -49 (App.1983), approved
  • State v. Carnegie 850 P.2d 690 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Carnegie 850 P.2d 690 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    Because certainty in the sentencing process is desirable, , approved, , we hold that a court must award a defendant presentence incarceration credit for the day on which he was booked into a detention facility, regardless of the time of day the booking occurred.
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-123196 834 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-123196 834 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    -550 , -49 (App.1983), approved and adopted
  • State v. Johnson 827 P.2d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Johnson 827 P.2d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    -50 , -49 (App.1983) (opinion adopted in full by the Arizona Supreme Court at , )
  • Vo v. Superior Court 836 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Vo v. Superior Court 836 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. McCuin 808 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. McCuin 808 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    overruled on other grounds
  • State v. Angelo 800 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Angelo 800 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Flores 772 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Flores 772 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Weaver 762 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Weaver 762 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Gourdin 751 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Gourdin 751 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Lopez 736 P.2d 369 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Lopez 736 P.2d 369 Ariz. 1987
    See, Gortarez v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., , , aff'd
  • State v. Hamilton 735 P.2d 854 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Hamilton 735 P.2d 854 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987