Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Berger, 134 P.3d 378.

110 citing documents.

State v. Braxton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Braxton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Marques Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Marques Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Garcia Del Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Garcia Del Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
1 “Eighth Amendment analysis focuses on the sentence imposed for each specific crime, not on the cumulative sentence.” ¶ 28 (2006) (citation omitted).
State v. Briseno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Briseno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
is inadequate because it fails to consider the “cumulative impact” of consecutive sentences, thus denying him a “fundamental right.” After the State filed its response, and Briseno his reply, the superior court set an evidentiary hearing.
State v. Sprouse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sprouse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ali 895 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 2017
State v. Gulli 391 P.3d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Gulli 391 P.3d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
¶21 As Gulli acknowledges, ¶¶ 25, 51 , 388 (2006), that the defendant’s twenty consecutive ten-year prison sentences, imposed pursuant to §§ 13-705 and 13-3553(C) for the possession of child pornography, did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
State v. Shreve Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Shreve Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Manuel Fernando Florez 384 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Manuel Fernando Florez 384 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
to a ‘narrow proportionality principle’ that prohibits sentences that are ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime.” quoting Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 20-21 (2003) (plurality opinion).
State v. Laird Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Laird Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“[I]f the sentence for a single offense is not disproportionately long, it does not become so merely because it is consecutive to another sentence for a separate offense or because the consecutive sentences are lengthy in aggregate.” ¶ 28, quoted in Kasic, 228 Ariz. at 233, ¶ 24, 265 P.3d at 415.
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
This prohibition has been applied to lengthy prison sentences, but “noncapital sentences are subject only to a ‘narrow proportionality principle’ that prohibits sentences that are ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime.” ¶ 10 (2006) (quoting Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 20, 23 (2003)).
State v. Lynam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Lynam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The statutory scheme for this offense has been recognized as commanding that “the possession of each image of child pornography is a separate offense.” (emphasis added); see A.R.S.
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 3 (2006); n.5, ¶ 6 (App. 2008) (Possession of child pornography is "defined in terms of the visual image itself rather than any specific media or physical object containing the image.").
State v. Villela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Villela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 28, (citations omitted).
State v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The Eighth Amendment “’does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence’ but instead forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly disproportionate to the crime.’” ¶ 13 (2006) (quoting Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 23 (2003)).
State v. Esposito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Esposito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶20 The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution “’does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence’ but instead forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly disproportionate to the crime.’” ¶ 13 (2006) (quoting Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 23-24 (2003)).
State v. Doody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Doody Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
A sentence that does not violate the prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment does not become unconstitutional “merely because it is consecutive to another sentence for a separate offense or because the consecutive sentences are lengthy in aggregate.” ¶ 28
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
When considering whether a sentence is excessive, a court “first determines if there is a threshold showing of gross disproportionality by comparing ‘the gravity of the offense [and] the hai’shness of the penalty.’ ” , quoting Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 28 , 123 S.Ct.
State of Arizona v. Christian Paul Royalty 336 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Christian Paul Royalty 336 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
The pornography’s continued existence causes the child victims continuing harm by haunting the children in years to come.”); United States v. Norris, 159 F.3d 926, 929 (5th Cir. 1998) (“Unfortunately, the ‘victimization’ of the children involved does not end when the pornographer’s camera is put away.”); (child pornography victims harmed not only by production of images but also by invasion of privacy in others’ continued possession of such images).
State v. Gill 333 P.3d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Gill 333 P.3d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 13, (noting that “courts must accord substantial deference to the legislature and its policy judgments” in analyzing sentencing statutes); (affirming that “statutory language is given its plain meaning unless impossible or
State v. Vidovic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Vidovic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶15 The Eighth Amendment “does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence but instead forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime.” ¶ 13, (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Juarez 837 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 2013
STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
¶¶ 3, 18-20, 382-83 (2006) (Berger II).
State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasic 265 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasic 265 P.3d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
10 ¶24 As a general rule, we do not consider the imposition of consecutive sentences in the proportionality inquiry, and Kasic has not convinced us that departure from the general rule would be appropriate in this case.