Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Diaz, 688 P.2d 1011.

30 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Michael Lorenzo Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Michael Lorenzo Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
4 ¶7 P.2d 1011 (1984), the defendant claimed the jury instructions had allowed the jury to convict him based on acts not charged in the indictment.
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶¶ 10, 12, -36 (2009); -79, -61 (App. 1982) (claim not raised at trial that jury instructions impermissibly amended an indictment reviewed for fundamental error), P.2d 1011 (1984).6 ¶34 Fimbres contends that being convicted of a unindicted offense under subsection A(1) violated his due process rights, constituting either structural or fundamental error.
State v. Miranda 10 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Miranda 10 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
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
State v. Olea 897 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Olea 897 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
The trial court’s deletion of the words “.45 grams of’ did not result in a trial on “an offense different from that with which (defendant) was originally charged.”
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 862 P.2d 192 Ariz. 1993
2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977); , aff'd as modified
State v. Smith 828 P.2d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Smith 828 P.2d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. White 770 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1989
State v. White 770 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1989
12 , overruled on other grounds, , our Court of Appeals addressed the very issue raised by the defendant here.
Pointe Resorts, Inc. v. Culbertson 761 P.2d 1041 Ariz. 1988
Pointe Resorts, Inc. v. Culbertson 761 P.2d 1041 Ariz. 1988
Smith v. Melson, Inc., 135 *
State v. Driggs 745 P.2d 135 Ariz. 1987
State v. Driggs 745 P.2d 135 Ariz. 1987
rev’d on other grounds, , adopted
State v. Driggs 745 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Driggs 745 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Later, , rev’d on other grounds, , adopted, , it was held that a subsequent offense could be used to enhance punishment for a prior, principal offense.
State v. O'Haire 720 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. O'Haire 720 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
reversed on other grounds
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
§§ 13-604(D), (H) A. Allegations of Prior Convictions Appellant next argues that the state’s , adopted
State v. Fierson 705 P.2d 1338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Fierson 705 P.2d 1338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
so that a defendant is not penalized over and above what he would receive if the offenses had been tried separately, we find the following and amend his sentences accordingly: 1.
State v. Superior Court in and for Maricopa 689 P.2d 539 Ariz. 1984
State v. Superior Court in and for Maricopa 689 P.2d 539 Ariz. 1984
Admittedly, only one of the offenses charged may be considered a prior for sentencing purposes, , but it is not necessary that the “prior conviction” be also a prior offense.