Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Peek, 195 P.3d 641.

90 citing documents.

State v. Herrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 10 (2008) (“Thus, lifetime probation was clearly available for an attempted child molestation occurring before 1994 or after the effective date of the 1997 amendment.”).
State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/haniffa Ariz. 2026
State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/haniffa Ariz. 2026
§ 1-246; ¶ 20 (2008); ¶ 10 (App. 2004).
State v. Bryars Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Bryars Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
§ 13-3601 –85 ¶¶ 11–20 (2008); and (2) if not, whether an erroneous designation in a judgment of conviction can be corrected under A.R.S.
State v. Rothrock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rothrock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Shoemaker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Shoemaker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 6 (2008) (citation omitted).
State v. Torres Moreno 473 P.3d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Torres Moreno 473 P.3d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rocco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rocco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Dean, 226 Ariz. at 49, ¶ 1 ().
State v. Lele Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Lele Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See, ¶¶ 5–6, 20 (2008) (citing A.R.S.
State v. Burgess 428 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Burgess 428 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 11 (2008) (statutory language is the best indication of the legislature’s intent).
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hon. gates/apolinar Altamirano 410 P.3d 433 Ariz. 2018
State v. Hon. gates/apolinar Altamirano 410 P.3d 433 Ariz. 2018
State v. Calderon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Calderon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 10 (2008) (“lifetime probation was clearly available for an attempted child molestation occurring .
State v. Worley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Worley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
If the supreme court “had intended that fundamental error be an exception to preclusion under Rule 32.2, the court presumably would have expressly said so in the rule itself[.]” ¶ 42 (App. 2007); ¶ 4 (2008) (claim of illegal sentence must be timely presented).
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich Ariz. 2017
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich Ariz. 2017
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.2(a)-(b); -83 ¶¶ 4-5 (2008) (claim of illegal sentence must be timely presented).
State v. Skala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Skala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.2(a); ¶ 4, (stating a claim of an illegal sentence must be timely presented).
State v. Luke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Luke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.2(a); ¶ 4, (recognizing that a claim of an illegal sentence must be timely presented); ¶ 4, (stating that claims of an illegal sentence are covered by Rule 32.1(c), not Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g), or (h)).
State v. Mammoth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mammoth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(denying relief upon review of the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief where petitioner failed to meet the “heavy burden in showing the court why the non-compliance [with the timelines set forth in Rule 32.9] should be excused”) ( ); ¶ 4, (claim of illegal sentence must be timely presented).
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 4 (2008) (claim of illegal sentence must be timely presented).
State v. Hazzard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hazzard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.2(a); ¶ 4 (2008); ¶ 4 (App. 2003).
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
–85, ¶¶ 7–8, 19 (2008) (Holding that § 13-604.01 reference to preparatory crimes is “clear language subjecting attempt offenses” to its provisions, including designation and sentencing as DCAC, and noting that “[b]efore 1994, a person convicted of any second degree DCAC could be placed on lifetime probation.”); Wr
State v. Hutchinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hutchinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Id.; (denying relief upon review of the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief where petitioner failed to meet the “heavy burden in showing the court why the non-compliance [with the timelines set forth in Rule 32.9] should be excused”) (); ¶ 4 (2008) (claim of illegal sentence must be timely presented).
State v. Farnsworth 389 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Wright v. Hon. gates/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Wright v. Hon. gates/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See, ¶¶ 7, 19 (2008) (finding that the reference in § 13-604.01 to preparatory crimes is “clear language subjecting attempt offenses” to its provisions, including designation and sentencing as DCAC).
State of Arizona v. Lynn Lavern Burbey 381 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Lynn Lavern Burbey 381 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Safety, 190 Ariz. at 495, 949 P.2d at 988 (sex offender registration is a means of protecting communities); -83, -40 (App. 1990) (sex offender registration is investigative tool for law enforcement), P.3d 641 (2008).