Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Crawford, 149 P.3d 753.

26 citing documents.

State v. Welch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Welch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 7 (2007), the violation that caused the Michigan suspension is an aggravating element that must conform exactly to an offense that would result in a suspension of an Arizona driver's license.
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
¶69 This limitation also is consistent with our approach to analyzing whether, for sentence-enhancement purposes, an out-of- 23 STATE v. ORTIZ Opinion of the Court state conviction qualifies as an historical prior conviction, ¶¶ 7-9, -56 (2007); 6 A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. George Anthony Dominguez Jr. 338 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. George Anthony Dominguez Jr. 338 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶ 14; (considering charging document when analyzing elements of foreign offense under former sentencing enhancement statute).
State v. Large 321 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Large 321 P.3d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 22 We agree with Large that our supreme court’s , controls.
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
§ 13-604(M) (convictions for two or more offenses committed on “same occasion” count as one conviction); ¶ 7, (“Before using a foreign conviction for sentencing enhancement purposes under § 13-604, the superior court must first conclude that the foreign conviction includes ‘every element that would be required to prove an enumerated Arizona offense.’”).
State of Arizona v. Miguel Francisco Inzunza 316 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Miguel Francisco Inzunza 316 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Arizona Felony ¶25 In order to determine whether a foreign conviction would be a felony in Arizona, the test is whether it “includes ‘every element that would be required to prove an enumerated Arizona offense.’”
State of Arizona v. William Peter Moran 307 P.3d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. William Peter Moran 307 P.3d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
¶16 When comparing a foreign conviction to Arizona DUI laws
State of Arizona v. Scott Alan Colvin 293 P.3d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Scott Alan Colvin 293 P.3d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(“Before using a foreign conviction for sentencing enhancement purposes under [A.R.S.]
State v. Cotten 263 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Criticized State v. Cotten 263 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 6 , (we review de novo whether a foreign conviction constitutes a felony in Arizona); ¶ 20 , (a determination that a prior conviction constitutes a historical prior felony conviction for sentence enhancement purposes is
State of Arizona v. Anson Rydell Norris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Anson Rydell Norris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
We review this question of law de novo, and agree with Norris’s argument.
State v. Smith 194 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2008
State v. Smith 194 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2008
¶8 Smith petitioned for review, claiming that the court of appeals’ ruling contravenes this Court’s P.3d 753 (2007), P.3d 92 (2000).
State v. Smith 173 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Smith 173 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-32, ¶¶ 7, 9 , -56 (2007).
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
P.3d 753 (2007); P.2d 352 (1990); P.3d 391 (App. 2002), Joyner argues that whether a defendant’s prior conviction may be characterized as a violent crime as defined in § 13- 604.04 is a legal question that may be resolved only by ref