Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hurley, 741 P.2d 257.

67 citing documents.

State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(reiterating its holding that “to prove prior convictions, the state must offer in evidence a certified copy of the documents establishing the conviction and must prove that the defendant is the person to whom the documents refer” unless the “defendant admits the prior conviction or the state can show ‘tha
State v. McKnelly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. McKnelly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Parole status is “not used to determine guilt, but only to enhance” or aggravate a defendant’s sentence upon conviction, -45, ¶¶ 11-15 (App. 2001).
State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
7, 36, (court approved finding of prior conviction when “state introduced a certified copy of California’s Disposition of Arrest and Court Action” because “[t]he state can make that showing through the use of extrinsic evidence, including ‘a certified copy of a judgment of conviction.’”) (emphasis added), quoting Nash, 143 Ariz. at 403, 694 P.2d at 233; (without specifying which documents were required, but finding a presentence report insufficient, court stated, “to prove prior convictions, the
State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(discussing proof required to establish prior convictions).
Newkirk v. Nothwehr 115 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Newkirk v. Nothwehr 115 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
the Arizona Supreme Court stated that its research did not reveal any constitutional basis for the requirement of a jury trial on prior convictions in Arizona.
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
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
Howeve r, 265 (1987), it “[a]pparently” had never analyzed the question of the burden of proof on such an allegation, “evidently assuming that because the issue of prior convictions was tried to a jury, proof beyond a reasonable doubt was required.” Even assuming the heightened standard h ad been c orre
State v. Cons 94 P.3d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
However, , it “[apparently” had never analyzed the question of the burden of proof on such an allegation, “evidently assuming that because the issue of prior convictions was tried to a jury, proof beyond a reasonable doubt was required.” Even assuming the heightened standard had been correct in t
State of Arizona v. Victor David Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Victor David Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
He claims that is the “proper procedure to establish a prior conviction[] for enhancement purposes.”
State v. Benenati 52 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Benenati 52 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
1 In doing so, Division One concluded that Apprendi had effectively overruled a
State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
the supreme court held that “[t]he [release] status is a sentencing factor which may be found by the court at the sentencing hearing.” 3 CONCLUSION ¶ 19 The convictions are affirmed, the sentences are vacated, and the matter is remanded for re-sentencing.
State v. Gross 31 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Gross 31 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 10 The State, , argues that release status need not be submitted to a jury because it is a sentence enhancer rather than an offense element.
State v. Eagle 994 P.2d 395 Ariz. 2000
State v. Eagle 994 P.2d 395 Ariz. 2000
(holding that release status was a sentencing factor and that the legislature did not change “the elements to avoid having to prove a traditional or logical component of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt”).
State v. Quinonez 976 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Quinonez 976 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Virgo 947 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Virgo 947 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-29 , -62 (1987) (citing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct.
State v. Scott 924 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Scott 924 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Aragon 912 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Aragon 912 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Johnson 903 P.2d 1116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Johnson 903 P.2d 1116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
The defendant now argues on appeal that this was error, , (holding that the proper procedure to prove prior convictions is to offer a certified copy of the conviction), , (holding that release status must be proven by clear and convincing evidence through reliable documentary evidence).
State v. Landrigan 859 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1993
State v. Landrigan 859 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1993
State v. McPhaul 851 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. McPhaul 851 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Lane 841 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Lane 841 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Martinez 837 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Martinez 837 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See Hudson, Sowards, , 687 * (finding need not be made by a jury); , (probation status need only be established by “reasonable evidence”); , (the court must find release status by clear and convincing evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt).
State v. Slemmer 823 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1991
State v. Slemmer 823 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1991
However, here, , we believe such diversity would be mischievous and a disservice to principles of federalism.
State v. Ross 804 P.2d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Ross 804 P.2d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990