Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Smith, 194 P.3d 399.

44 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Manuel David Perez-Gutierrez 548 P.3d 1102 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Manuel David Perez-Gutierrez 548 P.3d 1102 Ariz. 2024
See Ring, 204 Ariz. at 552 ¶ 45; ¶ 20 (2008) (explaining that sentence-enhancement errors, which necessarily affect a sentencing disposition, are amenable to fundamental-error review).
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Story Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Story Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 12 (2018); ¶ 1 (2008).
State v. Vela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Vela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Davis bears the burden of establishing that “(1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.” ¶ 21 (2008); ¶ 21 (2018).
State v. Runnels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Runnels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Accordingly, Runnels must establish that “(1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.” ¶ 21 (2008); ¶ 21 (2018).
State v. Carnochan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Carnochan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Brenda D. v. Dep't of Child Safety 410 P.3d 419 Ariz. 2018
Brenda D. v. Dep't of Child Safety 410 P.3d 419 Ariz. 2018
¶38 Under fundamental error review, Brenda “bears the burden to establish that (1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused [her] prejudice.” ¶ 21 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) ( ¶ 21 (2008)).
State v. Shelley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Shelley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
at 472, ¶ 22 ( ¶ 21 (2008)).
State v. Whiteside Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Whiteside Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
To prevail under fundamental error review, Whiteside “must establish that (1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.” ¶ 21 (2008).
State of Arizona v. Donald William Gulley 393 P.3d 929 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Donald William Gulley 393 P.3d 929 Ariz. 2017
¶¶ 21–22, (finding fundamental error when trial court improperly used a conviction to enhance a prison sentence).
State v. Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 21 (2008) (citing Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 568, ¶ 22).
State v. Reese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Reese Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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
5 ¶24 When Inzunza committed the present offenses, in February 2011, § 13-703(M) subjected offenders to enhanced sentences if they had been convicted in another jurisdiction of “an 5We find Inzunza’s appellate arguments on this issue to be substantially the same as th
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
–36 ¶¶ 18–20, –03 (2008).
State v. James 297 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. James 297 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Accordingly, James “bears the burden to establish that ‘(1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.’” ¶ 21 , ( ¶ 21 , and citing Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567, ¶ 20 , 115 P.3d at 607 ).
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
To prevail under fundamental error review, “a defendant must establish that (1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.”
State of Arizona v. Victor Manuel Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Victor Manuel Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Our supreme court later determined fundamental error review was appropriate in these circumstances, ¶¶ 20-23
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
The defendant bears the burden to establish that “(1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.” ¶ 21, (citing Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567, ¶ 20, 115 P.3d at 607).
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
The supreme court subsequently granted review of Norris’s ¶¶ 20, 22, which overruled Song and held a defendant is not precluded from claiming for the first time on appeal that his prison sentence was improperly enhanced with a prior foreign conviction.