Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom, 280 P.3d 1244.

49 citing documents.

State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State of Arizona v. Beau John Greene 527 P.3d 322 Ariz. 2023
State of Arizona v. Beau John Greene 527 P.3d 322 Ariz. 2023
Sess.), ¶ 35 (2012) (observing that amendment to 8 The superior court also considered what it characterized as legislators’ concerns about “how their actions contributed to complying with the constitutional mandate of Hidalgo.” However, there is no such “constitutional mandate” provided by Hidalgo.
State v. Kogan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Kogan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 8 (2012); ¶ 38 (App. 2013).
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
Likewise, we review a trial court’s admission of evidence during the penalty phase for abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (2012), giving “deference to a trial judge’s determination of whether rebuttal evidence offered during the penalty phase is ‘relevant’ within the meaning of the statute,” –57 ¶ 40 (2006).
Brandon H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Brandon H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 15 (2018) ( ¶ 17 (2012)).
State v. Quijada 439 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Quijada 439 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
2 DISCUSSION ¶21 We review the superior court’s denial of post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 19 (2012), but review constitutional and statutory interpretation issues de novo, ¶ 17 (2012); ¶ 5 (App. 2016).
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
Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 6 (2016) (statutes); ¶ 10 (2013) (court rules); ¶ 17 (2012) (constitutional issues).
Marianne N. v. dcs/o.N./i.T./a.G. Ariz. 2017
Marianne N. v. dcs/o.N./i.T./a.G. Ariz. 2017
State v. Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 19, (noting that after convictions are affirmed on appeal, the trial court does not have jurisdiction on remand to consider attacks on the validity of convictions).
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 17 (2012) ( ¶ 89 (2006)).
State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian Gunches 377 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian Gunches 377 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2016
¶ 28, (noting that Rule 13.5(c) does not entitle a capital case defendant to an adjudication and determination of the “’legal sufficiency’” of an aggravator under A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
We review constitutional issues de novo, State v. Nordstrom (Nordstrom III), ¶ 27, including evidentiary rulings that implicate the 10 STATE V. GOUDEAU Opinion of the Court Confrontation Clause, ¶ 42
State v. Bogie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bogie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Vincent Joseph Guarino 362 P.3d 484 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Vincent Joseph Guarino 362 P.3d 484 Ariz. 2015
Jared M., Amber M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jared M., Amber M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
We review constitutional claims de novo, ¶ 27, but because Father raises the due process claim for the first time on appeal, we review for fundamental error only, see Ruben M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
State v. Patron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Patron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶25 We review constitutional claims de novo, ¶ 27, but because Patron raises this claim for the first time on appeal, we review for fundamental error only, ¶ 19
Bethany C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Bethany C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
We review constitutional claims de novo, ¶ 27, but because Mother raises the due process claim for the first time on appeal, we review for fundamental error only, see Ruben M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
Sess.); ¶ 35, (“[T]he legislature amended the (F)(2) aggravator in 2003 to explicitly include contemporaneous convictions .
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
-17 ¶¶ 25-26, -51 (2012) (suggesting that the 60- day time frame under Rule 24.2 began to run upon judgment of conviction, not upon later resentencing judgment).
State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr. 291 P.3d 974 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr. 291 P.3d 974 Ariz. 2013
-115 ¶¶ 10, 13, –49 (2012).
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012