Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Smith, 189 P.2d 205.

48 citing documents.

State v. Maldonado 223 P.3d 653 Ariz. 2010
State v. Maldonado 223 P.3d 653 Ariz. 2010
He relied on this Court’s statement in State v. Smith that “in a criminal case the court acquires no jurisdiction of the subject matter of an alleged offense unless the jurisdictional facts constituting the offense are set forth in the information.”
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
13 ¶28 our supreme court indicated that the sufficiency of an indictment is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction.
Chronis v. Steinle 208 P.3d 210 Ariz. 2009
Chronis v. Steinle 208 P.3d 210 Ariz. 2009
ard-Hughes, 182 Ariz. at 275, 895 P.2d at 1038 (noting that an indictment is sufficient if it “protects the defendant from subsequent prosecution for the same offense”); State v. Superior Court (Clough), (“The purpose of an information is to give notice of the charges brought and serve as a record to prevent double jeopardy.”); (“[I]n a criminal case .
State v. Maldonado 219 P.3d 1050 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Maldonado 219 P.3d 1050 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 12 In State v. Smith, the Arizona Supreme Court held that an information “must indicate the crime charged and must contain a statement of the essential elements of the indicated crime.” , (citing Cochran v. United States, 157 U.S. 286, 290 , 15 S.Ct.
State v. Buckley 734 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Buckley 734 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Miller v. Superior Court 559 P.2d 686 Ariz. 1976
Miller v. Superior Court 559 P.2d 686 Ariz. 1976
State v. Smith 540 P.2d 680 Ariz. 1975
State v. Smith 540 P.2d 680 Ariz. 1975
State v. Andrus 495 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Andrus 495 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Osborn, 16 Ariz.App.
State v. Osborn 494 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Osborn 494 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Fulper 493 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Fulper 493 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Scott 460 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1969
State v. Scott 460 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1969
further adds that “When judgment of"'guilty has been: rendered, the court shall pronounce sentence in open court and it shall be entered of record.” , we held that it was error, where the defendant had not expressly waived his right to the statutory three day interim, to pronounce sentence before the three day period had elapsed.
State v. Maxwell 445 P.2d 837 Ariz. 1968
State v. Maxwell 445 P.2d 837 Ariz. 1968
State v. Fierro 416 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1966
State v. Fierro 416 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1966
.” 89 Ariz. at 233 , 360 P.2d at 480 .
Franklin v. Eyman 415 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Franklin v. Eyman 415 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
the Arizona Supreme Court, stated: “We must conclude that it is the settled • law of this state that in' a criminal case' the court acquires no jurisdiction of the.
State v. Rogers 407 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Rogers 407 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
State v. Alford 402 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1965
State v. Alford 402 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1965
See, , ; , ; and State v. Bigelow, [ , , 39 A.L.R.2d 979 .]” In State v. Fenton, supra, as here, this court was called upon to review a death sentence imposed after a plea of guilty.
State v. Morris 401 P.2d 147 Ariz. 1965
State v. Morris 401 P.2d 147 Ariz. 1965
.” 89 Ariz. at 233 , 360 P.2d at 480 .
State v. Jones 385 P.2d 1019 Ariz. 1963
State v. Jones 385 P.2d 1019 Ariz. 1963
State v. Killian 370 P.2d 287 Ariz. 1962
State v. Killian 370 P.2d 287 Ariz. 1962
.” The sentence of a defendant being within the discretion of the trial court, there is no requirement that a first offender be given a minimum sentence.
State v. Castano 360 P.2d 479 Ariz. 1961
State v. Castano 360 P.2d 479 Ariz. 1961
State v. Douglas 349 P.2d 622 Ariz. 1960
State v. Douglas 349 P.2d 622 Ariz. 1960
See, , ; , ; and State v. Bigelow, supra.
State v. Fenton 341 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1959
State v. Fenton 341 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1959
s intent of the law to grade the punishment in accordance with the general character of both the offense and of the parties convicted, that he should have all the information possible as to their past conduct; , , we upheld the trial court who considered the entire past criminal record of defendant at the time of passing sentence; , , we said that the trial court before sentence should inquire in defendant’s moral character, antecedents and associations, to the end that the court may be informed
Paxton v. Walters 231 P.2d 458 Ariz. 1951
Paxton v. Walters 231 P.2d 458 Ariz. 1951
State v. Moody 190 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1948
State v. Moody 190 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1948