Cited by

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

125 citing documents.

State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“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 6 STATE v. BRADLEY Decision of the Court open court controls over the minute entry.” ¶ 38
State v. Vincent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vincent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶23 “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) ().
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
State v. Trejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Trejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz 342 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz 342 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
(noting oral pronouncement in open court controls over minute entry).
State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Id.; ¶ 38, (“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.’ .
State of Arizona v. Dale Lee Evans 332 P.3d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Dale Lee Evans 332 P.3d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(appellate court may correct sentencing minute entry where error is clear from record).
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Shields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 316 P.3d 1219 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 316 P.3d 1219 Ariz. 2013
§ 13-751(G) (permitting the jury to consider “relevant” mitigation); ¶ 35, (stating that “[a] court is not required to give a separate instruction if its substance has already been covered by other instructions”).
Roosevelt Arthur Williams v. State of Arizona 303 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
¶ 16, (carrying of a loaded gun to murder scene is circumstantial evidence of premeditation).
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
The trial court had no obligation 7 to advise Rose of each specific element of his crimes “[a]bsent the unique circumstances of Henderson v. Morgan.” ¶ 17, (“The trial court was not required to explain the distinction between first and second degree murder and was free to accept the guilty plea if it was satisfied that the record established premeditation.”).
Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state 295 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2013
Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state 295 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2013
Cf. State v. Ovante, 231 Ariz. 180, 184 ¶ 10, (construing Rule 17.1(e) so as to avoid bifurcated appeals in capital cases).