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. Rhodes, 454 P.2d 993.

36 citing documents.

  • State v. Jennings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Jennings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
  • State v. Moreno 844 P.2d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Moreno 844 P.2d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Cereceres 800 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Cereceres 800 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Prevost 574 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Prevost 574 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    Rule 26.13 of the Arizona *105 , make clear that a state court may fix the date of the beginning of a sentence at a time prior to delivery to the Arizona State Prison and order it to run concurrently with a sentence imposed by another jurisdiction.
  • State v. Warde 570 P.2d 766 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Warde 570 P.2d 766 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Riley 539 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Riley 539 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Ramirez 533 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Ramirez 533 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1975
    cited by the defendant, as applicable to the facts in this case.
  • State v. Acosta 523 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Acosta 523 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Robles 516 P.2d 320 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Robles 516 P.2d 320 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Bridges 512 P.2d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • Distinguished State v. Bridges 512 P.2d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • State v. McGinnes 505 P.2d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • State v. McGinnes 505 P.2d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
    Landers v. State, 7 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Jackson 499 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Jackson 499 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Perez 488 P.2d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Perez 488 P.2d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    State v. Washington, 5 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Sutherland 483 P.2d 576 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Sutherland 483 P.2d 576 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Drevier 483 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Drevier 483 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    the Supreme Court held that “a reasonable time” meant exactly that and absent a statutory reason for doing otherwise, a defendant must be sentenced within a reasonable time.
  • State v. Kennedy 472 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Kennedy 472 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1970
    this Court recognized that the trial court had a wide .discretion in the passing of sentence, and affirmed the decision of the trial court which fixed the sentence to run concurrently with a sentence being served in another state.
  • State v. Farley 468 P.2d 379 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Farley 468 P.2d 379 Ariz. 1970
    The court, in sentencing defendant, provided that the term of imprisonment “shall begin with the date of your original incarceration, April 2, 1969.” This Court held, , , that § 13-1652, A.R.S., permits the court to fix a date when sentence is to begin to run, and inasmuch as the statute does not state where the person is to be confined before delivery that a sentence could run concurrently with that of another state before delivery to the penitentiary.
  • State v. Quinn 460 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Quinn 460 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    the Arizona Supreme Court considered the question of delay in the entry of judgment with its sentence or probation.