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. Gonzales, 687 P.2d 1267.

26 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/haniffa Ariz. 2026
  • State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/haniffa Ariz. 2026
    (holding that a statute “will not govern events that occurred before its effective date” unless the statute states 6 STATE V. HON.
  • State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    The court’s imposition of six months for the misdemeanor possession charge was illegal because, by requiring Davis to serve the six months of jail time concurrently with imprisonment in the DOC, the court imposed a sentence that is incompatible with the applicable sentencing statute, § 13-707(A).1 (sentence inconsistent with sentencing statute is illegal).
  • State v. Montes 223 P.3d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Montes 223 P.3d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    (determining sua sponte if new statute applied to ease); , -32 (2003), quoting Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 321 n. 6, 107 S.Ct.
  • State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    [and] the possibility of probation.” , , Coconino County Superior Court
  • Circle K Stores, Inc. v. Apache County 18 P.3d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Circle K Stores, Inc. v. Apache County 18 P.3d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    § 1-244 (1995) (“No statute is retroactive unless expressly declared therein.”); , *409 (“Unless a statute provides otherwise, ‘it will not govern events that occurred before its effective date.’ ”) ( , , 1391 (1984)).
  • State v. Dawson 792 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Dawson 792 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Vargas-Burgos 783 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Vargas-Burgos 783 P.2d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    ed probation upon payment of taxes, court exceeded its sentencing authority and sentence was void as to excess portion); United States v. Godoy, 678 F.2d 84 (9th Cir.1982) (district court’s failure to impose mandatory forfeiture provision for conviction of RICO violations resulted in illegal sentence which should have been corrected upon government’s motion to modify sentence); , (where trial court imposed sentence less than that mandated by statute, state properly appealed under § 13-4032, as s
  • State v. Broughton 752 P.2d 483 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Broughton 752 P.2d 483 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Winton 736 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Winton 736 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    By reason of statutes in effect at the time a crime is committed, a defendant has a vested right in the length of incarceration provided for an offense, , defenses to the crime and burdens of proof
  • State v. Wilson 724 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Wilson 724 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    Therefore, , and State v. Nosie, supra, the 1983 version of A.R.S.
  • State v. Nosie 724 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Nosie 724 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    the Arizona Supreme Court stated that "unless a statute provides otherwise, it will not govern events that occurred before its effective date."
  • State v. Fallon 726 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Fallon 726 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984