Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cheramie, 189 P.3d 374.

77 citing documents.

State v. Estrada-Resendiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jarrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
red to consider the verdict, if they desire to have any testimony repeated, or if they or any party request additional instructions, the court may recall them to the courtroom and order the testimony read or give appropriate additional instructions.” (emphasis added)); ¶ 21, aff’d in part and vacated in part on other grounds, P.3d 374 (2008).
State v. Jarrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
§ 13-3408(A)(2) (2010) for knowingly “possess[ing] a narcotic 6 STATE v. SMITH Decision of the Court drug for sale.” When both alleged crimes are based on the same facts, to “possess for sale” is a lesser included offense of the greater crime, to “transport for sale.” ¶ 11, (“Given Arizona’s broad definition of ‘possess,’ we cannot conceive how a person can ‘transport’ drugs without having possession of or dominion or control over them.”).
State v. Lucas 321 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lucas 321 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hines 307 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Hines 307 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State of Arizona v. Kevin Ottar and Ruan Junior Hamilton 302 P.3d 622 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Kevin Ottar and Ruan Junior Hamilton 302 P.3d 622 Ariz. 2013
This meaning comports with “Arizona’s broad definition of ‘possess.’” ¶ 11
State v. Breed 286 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Breed 286 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State of Arizona v. Xavier Hipolito Estrella 286 P.3d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Xavier Hipolito Estrella 286 P.3d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
¶¶ 11-12, 22 , 378 (2008) (possession and possession for sale lesser-included offenses of transportation for sale).
State v. Gray 258 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Gray 258 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Ferraro, 67 Ariz. at 401 , 198 P.2d at 123 .
State of Arizona v. Mark Dwayne Gannon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Mark Dwayne Gannon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Paul David Windsor, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Paul David Windsor, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
¶¶ 10-11, (unlawful possession lesser-included offense of transporting drugs for sale because “we cannot conceive how a person can „transport‟ drugs without having possess[ed them]”).
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-48, ¶¶ 1, 8 , -75 (2008).
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(“‘To constitute a lesser-included offense, the offense must be composed solely of some but not all of the elements of the greater crime so that it is impossible to have committed the crime as charged without having committed the lesser one.’”)