Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde, 315 P.3d 1200.

173 citing documents.

State v. Zamorano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Zamorano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State of Arizona v. Kevin Artice Miles 414 P.3d 680 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Kevin Artice Miles 414 P.3d 680 Ariz. 2018
§ 13-752(P); ¶ 89 (2014).
State v. Valles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Valles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Viliborghi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Viliborghi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 18, (citation omitted).
State v. Fell 393 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Fell 393 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. McClain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. McClain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
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. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Moraga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Moraga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“An illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” ¶ 137 (2014).
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Clary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We review the denial of a continuance request for an abuse of discretion, “which we will find only if the defendant demonstrates prejudice.” ¶ 18 (2014).
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
With respect to Jenny S., who identified Goudeau as her assailant after seeing him at a preliminary hearing, P.3d 1200 (2014), is controlling.
State v. Steinle ex rel. County of Maricopa 372 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2016
State v. Hon. steinle/alejandra Moran Ariz. 2016
State v. Hon. steinle/alejandra Moran Ariz. 2016
Hearsay is defined by Rule 801(c)(1) and (2) as a statement “the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing” that is offered “in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” ¶ 78
State v. Steinle ex rel. County of Maricopa 372 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2016
Hearsay is defined by Rule 801(c)(1) and (2) as a statement “the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing” that is offered “in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” , 564 ¶ 78
State v. Birchett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Birchett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-59, ¶ 42, -16 (2014) (citation omitted).
State v. Cohn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cohn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Derek Jesus Ramos 372 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Derek Jesus Ramos 372 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
his right to counsel of choice.” Generally, “[w]e review a trial court’s denial of a motion to continue for an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Guardado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Guardado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 18, (citations omitted); (citations omitted).
State v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cordova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
–65, ¶ 82 (2014) (court did not err in failing to define “theft” in jury instructions because it was used in its ordinary sense and was commonly understood.)
State v. Sumpter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sumpter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 90, We cite the current version of the applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have occurred since the date of the offense.
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
We review the denial of a motion to continue for an abuse of discretion, “which we will find only if the defendant demonstrates prejudice.” ¶ 18, (internal citations omitted).
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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
Thus, the state may “rebut” mitigation - that is, a conclusion that the defendant should be shown leniency - by introducing evidence of the “specific harm caused by 14 STATE V. LETEVE Opinion of the Court the defendant.” ¶ 126
Woestman v. Russell 356 P.3d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Woestman v. Russell 356 P.3d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
We review de novo issues of statutory interpretation, BMO Harris Bank, N.A., v. Wildwood Creek Ranch, LLC, , 365 ¶ 7, but defer to the trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, , 556 ¶ 28
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