Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Waggoner, 697 P.2d 320.

44 citing documents.

State v. Micalizzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Micalizzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(indictment’s reference to sentence enhancement statute is adequate notice of State’s intent to seek enhanced sentence).
State v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
( (State’s reference in information to A.R.S.
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
To satisfy those concerns and allow a defendant to decide whether to accept a plea, the “„defendant should know the full extent of the potential punishment that he faces before trial.‟” -39, -22 (1985)
State of Arizona v. Robert Michael Hollenback Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Robert Michael Hollenback Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
is adequate notice of the state’s intent to enhance [the defendant’s] sentence under that statute.” (“Th[e] recital of A.R.S.
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Conn 98 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Conn 98 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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 of Arizona v. Mark Anthony Cons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
P.2d 320 (1985) (constitutional principles of due process entitle defendant to notice of range of potential sentence before trial); Benak, 18 P.3d at 13 1, (“Notice .
State v. Cons 94 P.3d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(constitutional principles of due process entitle defendant to notice of range of potential sentence before trial); Benak, , 18 P.3d at 131 , , (“Notice ...
Raney v. Lindberg 76 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Raney v. Lindberg 76 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Benak, 199 Ariz. at 337, ¶ 14 , 18 P.3d at 131 (App.2001).
State v. Nichols 33 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Nichols 33 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(allegation of dangerous *238 nature offense); , (allegation of on-parole status); , (allegation of intent to promote criminal street gang).
State v. Benak 18 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Benak 18 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
-23, ¶ 32 , -96 (App.1998).
State v. Leon 3 P.3d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Leon 3 P.3d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Guytan 968 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Guytan 968 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Rodgers, 134 Ariz. at 306-07 , 655 P.2d at 1358-59 ; -39 , -22 (1985) (“due process and orderly procedure” require that defendant receives notice before trial of state’s intention to seek enhanced punishment).
State v. Burge 804 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1990
State v. Burge 804 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1990
9 n. 5, , 918 n. 5 (1988) ( , ).
State v. King 802 P.2d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. King 802 P.2d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Ault 759 P.2d 1320 Ariz. 1988
State v. Ault 759 P.2d 1320 Ariz. 1988
State v. Littles 749 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1988
State v. Littles 749 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1988
State v. Escalante 714 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Escalante 714 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
our supreme court held that a defendant must receive notice before trial commences that the state intends to allege his release status in order to validly enhance punishment pursuant to A.R.S.
State v. Love 711 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Love 711 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. LaBar 715 P.2d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. LaBar 715 P.2d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Carter 700 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1985
State v. Carter 700 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1985
§§ 13-604 and 13-604.01 require that the jury determine the issue of dangerousness); , (although an allegation of parole status need not be chárged in the indictment or information under A.R.S.
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985