Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Valenzuela, 695 P.2d 732.

38 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Alan Ivan Ibarra 522 P.3d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State of Arizona v. Alan Ivan Ibarra 522 P.3d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State v. Hoskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hoskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(noting the discretion of appellate courts to decide moot issues).
State v. Kaipio 435 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Kaipio 435 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See State v. Valenzuela , , 44, , 733 (1985) (noting the discretion of appellate courts to decide issues that have become moot but pose significant issues that are likely to recur); see also Velazquez v. Myers , 1 CA-SA 17-0298, 2018 WL 326515 , at *2, ¶ 8 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan.
State of Arizona v. Hon. wein/goodman 417 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Hon. wein/goodman 417 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2018
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
This credit is known colloquially as “copper time.”
State v. Jensen 970 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Jensen 970 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(“statutes which detrimentally affect parole eligibility are unconstitutional as applied to a prisoner charged with a crime committed prior to enactment of the statute”); , (provisions of new code for earning release credits could not be applied to old code inmates).
Zarabia v. Bradshaw 912 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1996
Zarabia v. Bradshaw 912 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
See Big D , (although issues are moot, supreme court may exercise discretion to reach merits when opposing positions on issues are fully briefed); , (this court will exercise discretion to decide moot issues where the issues are important and affect public interest).
In re the Appeal in Navajo County Juvenile Action No. JV-94000086 898 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
In re the Appeal in Navajo County Juvenile Action No. JV-94000086 898 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
3 Although juvenile has now reached the age of majority and is beyond the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, we retained this appeal for consideration and disposition despite its mootness because it presents an issue that is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” , , , 435 (1984).
Crerand v. State 859 P.2d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Crerand v. State 859 P.2d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Noble 808 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Noble 808 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State ex rel. McDougall v. Municipal Court 745 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State ex rel. McDougall v. Municipal Court 745 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Rasmussen by Mitchell v. Fleming 741 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1987
Rasmussen by Mitchell v. Fleming 741 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1987
State v. Rodriguez 735 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1987
State v. Rodriguez 735 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1987
Valenzuela v. State 736 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Valenzuela v. State 736 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Berry v. State 724 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Berry v. State 724 P.2d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Fox v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 717 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Fox v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 717 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Since the entry of judgment herein, the Arizona Supreme Court, , approved this court’s order requiring the petitioner’s release after finding that the Department of Corrections had failed to correctly compute his release date.
State v. Davis 712 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Davis 712 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Oehlerking 709 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Oehlerking 709 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985