Cited by

See id.; (appellate court will uphold trial court’s ruling if result was legally correct for any reason).

“We will affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason.” ¶ 7 (2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

¶ 7 (2015) (We will affirm the superior court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason.).

“The trial judge must act as a gatekeeper by applying this rule to admit ‘only relevant and reliable expert testimony.’” ¶ 25 (2015) (citation omitted).

¶ 7 (2015) (stating we will affirm a decision that is “legally correct for any reason” ()).

“[W]hen a defendant confesses to several related crimes, independent evidence that establishes the commission of the closely related crimes may suffice to corroborate the confession as a whole, rendering it admissible.” ¶ 11 (2015) (citing cases).

This Court “will affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason.” ¶ 7 (2015) (cleaned up).

¶¶ 16–17 (App. 2000) (each of three shots fired—one into the ground and two toward two victims— “constituted a separate act” by the defendant); (“[A]lthough several shots be fired in such quick succession that they constitute, in effect, but one act, still, the result may involve more than one offense” for purposes of double jeopardy); –01, ¶¶ 79–84 (2015) (consecutive sentences for kidnapping and felony murder of the same victim did not violate Section 13-116 or constitute double jeopardy).

“Mr. Saldivar is your attorney and you’re not representing yourself.” The court’s unwillingness to consider a motion filed in propria persona by a represented defendant was consistent with the well-established principle that a “defendant who is represented by counsel is not entitled to hybrid representation” and so “may not file motions in addition to those the attorney files.” ¶ 63 (2015).

¶ 7 (2015) (“We will affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason.”(internal quotation and citation omitted)).

E.g., State v. (Michael J.) Carlson, ¶ 84 (2015); State v. (Shawnte S.) Jones, – 04 ¶ 13 (2014).

The constitution does not, however, guarantee a defendant the right to present a defense “in whatever manner and with whatever evidence [the defendant] chooses.” ¶ 36 (2015) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

¶ 80 (2015) (–13 (1989)).

¶ 61 (2015) (“This is not to say that all such errors are harmless so long as the trial court provides an appropriate instruction.

Under this doctrine, “[o]nly a reasonable inference of the corpus delicti need exist before a confession may be considered, and circumstantial evidence suffices to support the inference.” ¶ 8 (2015) (quotation omitted).

6 ¶ 8 (2015) (citation omitted); see also Morris, 215 Ariz. at 333, ¶ 34.

We apply a –313 (1989), to determine whether a defendant committed a single act, requiring concurrent sentences, or multiple acts, authorizing consecutive sentences, ¶ 80 (2015).