Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Davis, 79 P.3d 64.

114 citing documents.

State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
vacated, 501 U.S. 1246 (1991), on remand
State of Arizona v. Timothy Edward Egan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Timothy Edward Egan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
See Klokic, ¶¶ 59, 61 (2003).
State v. Kleinman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Kleinman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
and the State’s concession that the sentences were grossly disproportionate to the offenses, this court vacated Kleinman’s sentences and remanded for the superior court to resentence him under A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 70 (2003); n.6 (App. 1993).
State v. Schaeffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Schaeffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
–81, ¶ 12 (2003) (finding no “compelling reason to interpret Arizona’s cruel and unusual punishment provision differently from the related provision in the federal constitution”).
State v. Cordova-Wilkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Cordova-Wilkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶18 to support his argument that fundamental, prejudicial error occurred in the aggravated assault jury instruction.
State of Arizona v. Evan McCarrick Jerald 548 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Evan McCarrick Jerald 548 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
¶25 In conducting our Eighth Amendment proportionality inquiry, we “carefully examine the facts of the case and the circumstances of the offender to see whether the sentence is cruel and unusual.”
State v. Agundez-Martinez 524 P.3d 832 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Agundez-Martinez 524 P.3d 832 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
We note that there is no “compelling reason to interpret Arizona’s cruel and unusual punishment provision differently.” Ariz. Const. Art. 2 § 15.
State v. Bluhm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Bluhm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶11 in arguing that DCAC enhancements require “something more,” such as physical “dangerousness” to a child.
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Wilkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Wilkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
388, ¶¶ 11, 48–49 (2003); –11 (1992).
State v. Carter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Carter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 64 (2003) (); ¶ 19 (App. 2013); ¶ 34 (App. 2004); ¶¶ 18-20 (2018) (discussing three types of fundamental error).
State v. Kleinman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Kleinman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶14 Kleinman argues the sentences imposed are cruel and unusual and in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution
State of Arizona v. Martin Raul Soto-Fong 474 P.3d 34 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Martin Raul Soto-Fong 474 P.3d 34 Ariz. 2020
¶29 We “will not consider the imposition of consecutive sentences in a proportionality inquiry.” ¶ 27 (2006) ( ¶ 47 (2003)).
State v. Shephard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Shephard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
at 479, ¶ 27 ( ¶ 47 (2003)).
State v. Hester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 23; ¶ 64 (2003).
State v. Healer 440 P.3d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Healer 440 P.3d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
¶12 In State v. Davis , , ¶ 12, our supreme court "asked the parties to brief whether Article 2, Section 15 of the Arizona Constitution provides greater protection against cruel and unusual punishment than does the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
State v. Tamala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Tamala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Helm 431 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Helm 431 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Berger , , ¶ 28, (courts normally do not "consider the imposition of consecutive sentences in a proportionality inquiry" (quoting State v. Davis , , ¶ 47, ) ).
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jason Eugene Bush 423 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2018
State v. Davis , , 380-81 ¶ 12, , 67-68 (2003).
State v. Keddy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Keddy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Torrefranca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Torrefranca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Finally, claiming the statute was found unconstitutional, is inapposite because Davis was a proportionality review on appeal.