Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr., 291 P.3d 974.

125 citing documents.

Abelardo Chaparro v. David C Shinn 459 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2020
Abelardo Chaparro v. David C Shinn 459 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2020
¶¶ 38–39 (2013) (stating courts interpret a criminal sentence with the goal of giving effect to the sentencing court’s intent).
State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 38 (2013) (holding that when trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence conflicts with minute entry, appellate court can correct minute entry if record clearly identifies the intended sentence).
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 38 (2013) (allowing sentencing minute entry to be corrected on appeal when record clearly identifies intended sentence).
State v. Eschrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Eschrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶¶ 38- 39 (2013) (quotation omitted).
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶¶ 38-39 (2013) (appellate court may correct the minute entry).
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 38 (2013); Ariz. R. Crim.
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
We review de novo constitutional claims, ¶ 18 (2013), including the constitutionality of aggravating factors, ¶ 105 (2014).
State of Arizona v. Stephen Jay Malone Jr 444 P.3d 733 Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Stephen Jay Malone Jr 444 P.3d 733 Ariz. 2019
State v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“When a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written minute entry can be clearly resolved by looking at the record, the ‘[o]ral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.’” ¶ 38 (2013) () (alteration in original).
State v. Trimble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Trimble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State of Arizona v. Jasper Phillip Rushing Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Jasper Phillip Rushing Ariz. 2017
¶ 14 (2013) (“There is no prescribed period of time which must elapse between the formation of the intent to kill and the act of killing, but the record must at least circumstantially support that a defendant considered his act and did not merely react to an instant quarrel or in the heat of passion.”); State v.
State v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Here, the superior court ordered probation and orally stated Marquez was “guilty of theft under Count 3, a Class 6 undesignated offense.” “When a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written minute entry can be clearly resolved by looking at the record, the [o]ral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.” ¶ 38 (2013) (citation omitted).
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Swoopes, 216 Ariz. at 393, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d at 948; ¶ 12, (appellate court reviews superior court’s acceptance of guilty plea for abuse of discretion).
State v. James 393 P.3d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. James 393 P.3d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
(correcting similar error).
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
–86 ¶¶ 18–22, –80 (2013) (rejecting argument that “unbridled charging discretion” of prosecutors violates due process, equal protection, and the Eighth Amendment).
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
And that’s the face he looked at that little boy with.” Prosecutors “should not call the jurors’ attention to matters the jury should not consider.” ¶ 24, (internal quotations, edits, and citation omitted).
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Nave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Nave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶2 “When a discrepancy between the court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written minute entry can be clearly resolved by looking at the record, the oral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.” ¶ 38 (2013) (internal quotation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Angel Pete Ruiz 372 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Angel Pete Ruiz 372 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
See, (when discrepancy can be clearly resolved by reference to record, oral pronouncement of sentence controls over minute entry).
State v. James 372 P.3d 311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. James 372 P.3d 311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brookins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brookins 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
State v. Lieser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Lieser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 13-703(J); ¶ 38, (providing that an oral pronouncement of sentence controls over a discrepancy in written minute entry).
State v. Esposito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Esposito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Puma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Puma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 38 (2013) (“When a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written minute entry can be clearly resolved by looking at the record, the ‘[o]ral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.’ This Court can order the minute entry corrected if the record clearly