Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Estrada, 34 P.3d 356.

135 citing documents.

State v. Gomez 127 P.3d 873 Ariz. 2006
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
§ 13-901.01 and the supreme court’s , applied retroactively to a defendant who had committed his offenses before the statute was amended and the ease decided.
State v. Walker 95 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Walker 95 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
(abuse of discretion stan *494 dard); ¶ 2 , disapproved, in part on other grounds, , (citing and following Bishop).
State v. Reinhardt 92 P.3d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Reinhardt 92 P.3d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
O'CONNOR v. Hyatt 87 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
O'CONNOR v. Hyatt 87 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
See, -52, ¶¶ 17-23 , -61 (2001); Raney, 206 Ariz. at 195-200, ¶¶ 17-22, 76 P.3d at 872-74.
State v. Vogel 85 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Vogel 85 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 19 , 34 P.3d, 356, 360 (2001) (“[W]e will not employ a ‘plain meaning interpretation [that] would lead to ...
Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Marana 81 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Marana 81 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
(we cannot ascribe to a statute or ordinance an interpretation that would lead to unreasonable result).
TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini 76 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Givens 76 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Raney v. Lindberg 76 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini 76 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Givens 76 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
our supreme court held that incarceration is also prohibited when the defendant has been convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia.
Raney v. Lindberg 76 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
¶ 24 , (applying probation eligibility provisions of Proposition 200 to convictions for possession of items of drug paraphernalia associated solely with personal use by individuals); Stubblefield, 197 Ariz. at 383 , 4 P.3d at 438 (Proposition 200 applies to attempted possession of narcoti
State v. Story 75 P.3d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Story 75 P.3d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
O'BRIEN v. Escher 65 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
O'BRIEN v. Escher 65 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
The other issue O’Brien raises is whether our supreme court’s , applies to his conviction and sentence for a drug paraphernalia offense he committed before Estrada was decided, thereby precluding the respondent judge from ordering him to serve a jail term on that conviction after finding O’Brien had violated his probation conditions.
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin 69 P.3d 1000 Ariz. 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin 69 P.3d 1000 Ariz. 2003
However, this Court has interpreted that prior statute as encompassing “use of drug paraphernalia.” ¶¶ 21- 24
State v. Gallagher 69 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Gallagher 69 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
persuades us that Gallagher’s convictions should have been considered to *269 gether as one conviction, rather then two, for Proposition 200 sentencing.
Way v. State 67 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Way v. State 67 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
The other issue O’Brien raises is whether our supreme court’s decision in State v. Estrada, 201 Ariz. 247, applies to his conviction and sentence for a drug paraphernalia offense he committed before Estrada was decided, thereby precluding the respondent judge from ordering him to serve a jail term on that conviction after finding O’Brien had violated his probation conditions.
State v. Thues 54 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Thues 54 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 6 The sentencing provisions of Proposition 200 also apply to first and second convictions for possession of drug paraphernalia for personal use, ¶ 24 , and the reasoning and holding in Christian therefore apply with equal weight to such convictions.
In Re the Marriage of Diezsi 38 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
In Re the Marriage of Diezsi 38 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(directing courts to construe statutes in ways that avoid irrational result or outcome at odds with legislative intent), ¶ 11 We vacate that portion of the trial court’s order of September 19, 2000, denying Liam’s request for change of custody and remand this matter to the trial court with directi