Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Martinez, 115 P.3d 618.

130 citing documents.

State v. Price 145 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
§ 16 , aff'd in pertinent pari
State v. Alvarez 143 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Alvarez 143 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
By failing to object below on Sixth Amendment grounds, Alvarez “forfeit[ed] the right to obtain appellate relief unless [he] prove[s] that fundamental error occurred.” n. 2 , , 620 n. 2 (2005); , (“Fundamental error review ...
State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. James Albert Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
052129.” 7 Henderson, ¶¶ 19, 20, n.2, n.2 (2005).
P.M. v. Gould 136 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
P.M. v. Gould 136 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
For the reasons discussed below, , (holding that the jury need only find a single aggravating factor to subject a defendant to an aggravated sentence).
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Scott MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Scott MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Brown 129 P.3d 947 Ariz. 2006
State v. Brown 129 P.3d 947 Ariz. 2006
ent opinion in State v. Martinez, holding that “once a jury implicitly or explicitly finds one aggravating factor, a defendant is exposed to a 15 sentencing range that extends to the maximum punishment available under section 13-702.” ¶ 21
State v. Kuck 129 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Kuck 129 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Gomez 127 P.3d 873 Ariz. 2006
State v. Urquidez 138 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Urquidez 138 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
n. 2 , , 620 n. 2 (2005) (“Defendants who fail to object to error at trial do not, strictly speaking, ‘waive’ their claims.
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
Rather, defendants who fail to object to an error below forfeit the right to obtain appellate relief unless they prove that fundamental error occurred.” n.2, n.2 (2005).
State of Arizona v. Andrew James Raymond Burdick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Andrew James Raymond Burdick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
On review, P.3d 618 (2005), P.3d 601 (2005).
State v. Gomez 123 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2005
State v. Gomez 123 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2005
¶ 16, (finding no Sixth Amendment violation when one aggravating factor is Blakely-compliant and others are found by sentencing judge).9 ¶37 The jury, however, was neither asked to determine how much force was necessary to accomplish the kidnapping nor to
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
“no constitutional violation occurs if the ultimate sentence falls within the range authorized by the jury verdict alone.” “[U]nder Arizona law, the statutory maximum sentence for [Blakely] purposes in a case in which no 30 aggravating factors have been proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt is the presumptive sentence.” see also A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Juan Manuel Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Juan Manuel Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
7 Rather, defendants who fail to object to an error below forfeit the right to obtain appellate relief unless they prove that fundamental error occurred.” n.2, n.2 (2005); (“Fundamental error review .
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
¶102 Our recent decision in State v. Martinez, ___ Ariz. ___, disposes of Glassel’s arguments.
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
¶¶ 26-27 , , 2005 WL 1594394 (2005).