Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Sepahi, 78 P.3d 732.

80 citing documents.

Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
To determine legislative intent, we look first to the language the legislature has used as providing “the most reliable evidence of its intent.”
Scott Douglas Nordstrom v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Scott Douglas Nordstrom v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
“‘When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language and need not engage in any other means of statutory interpretation.’” State v. Arellano, No. CV-05-0397-SA, ¶ 9, 2006 WL 1412884, *3 (Ariz. May 24, 2006), (“[A] statute’s language is the most reliable index of its meaning.”).
State of Arizona v. Robert Michael Hollenback Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Robert Michael Hollenback Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(“[A] statute’s language is the most reliable index of its meaning”).
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
¶¶ 15-16, (courts may not “amend[] [a] statute to require proof of elements not set forth by the legislature,” and “[i]n the end, a statute’s language is the most reliable index of its meaning”).
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
3 See State v. Sepahi, 206 * , 324 n. 3, ¶ 19, , 735 n. 3 (2003); see also Ring III, 204 Ariz. at 555 ¶ 53, 65 P.3d at 936 .
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
6, ¶¶ 7- 12, -09 (App. 2005) (no waiver of Blakely issue despite not having been raised below); Henderson, 100 P.3d at 914 (addressing alleged Blakely error even though “[n]either party requested that a jury determine the aggravators beyond a 8 n.3, n.3 (2003) (Apprendi “issue was not raised either in the superior court or the court of appeals, and therefore was not preserved for our review”); (Even though Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986), ha
State v. Cleere 109 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Cleere 109 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
n. 3 , , 735 n. 3 (2003) (“any Apprendi error would be harmless”); Henderson, ¶¶ 22, 33 , 100 P.3d at 917, 921, 922 (noting that “every federal circuit court has ...
State v. Chiappetta 107 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Chiappetta 107 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Castaneda 102 P.3d 985 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Castaneda 102 P.3d 985 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Resendis-Felix 100 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Resendis-Felix 100 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(“Ring III”); , (finding Apprendi error harmless in capital sentencing following guilty plea to first-degree murder); , 324 n. 3, , 735 n. 3 (2003) (“any Apprendi error would be harmless”)
State v. Miranda-Cabrera 99 P.3d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Miranda-Cabrera 99 P.3d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
324 n. 3, ¶ 19, , 735 n. 3 (2003) (citing Cotton, 535 U.S. at 632-33 , 122 S.Ct.
State v. Martinez 100 P.3d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Martinez 100 P.3d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
324 n. 3, ¶ 19, , 735 n. 3 (2003) (“[A]ny Apprendi error would be harmless.”).
Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire v. A.P.S. Rent a Car & Leasing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire v. A.P.S. Rent a Car & Leasing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Of course, “a statute’s language is the most reliable index of its meaning.” State v. Sepahi
Galaz v. Stewart 88 P.3d 166 Ariz. 2004
Galaz v. Stewart 88 P.3d 166 Ariz. 2004
See State v. Sepahi, ___ Ariz. ___, ¶ 2