Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Armando Pena, Jr., 331 P.3d 412.

131 citing documents.

State v. Aguirre 527 P.3d 894 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Vaughan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Vaughan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Hustrulid v. Stakebake 516 P.3d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Hustrulid v. Stakebake 516 P.3d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 6 (2014) 8 HUSTRULID v. STAKEBAKE Opinion of the Court (absent statutory definition, courts may look to dictionary definitions for common meaning of a term).
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Burger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Burger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Instead, she only challenges her convictions for Counts 7, 8, 9, and 10 related to the vehicle burglary, arguing insufficient evidence supports her convictions.1 ¶9 We review de novo the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction and determine only “if substantial evidence exists to support the jury verdict.” ¶ 5 (2014).
State v. Douglas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Douglas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
David Welch v. Cochise Board of Supervisors Ariz. 2021
David Welch v. Cochise Board of Supervisors Ariz. 2021
31, 2021); ¶ 6 (2014) (“Absent statutory definitions, courts apply common meanings and may look to dictionaries.” (internal citations omitted)).
State v. Price Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Price Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
We review this issue de 3 STATE v. PRICE Decision of the Court novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to supporting the jury’s verdict and resolving “any conflicts in the evidence against the defendant.” ¶ 5 (2014).
State v. Khorrami Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Khorrami Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Shakir Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Shakir Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Purcell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Purcell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Waldrup Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Waldrup Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Chambers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Chambers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State Kingston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State Kingston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 5 (2014); ¶ 15 (2011).
State v. Worrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Worrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶28 We review whether sufficient evidence supports a conviction de novo, “resolv[ing] any conflicts in the evidence against the defendant and view[ing] all facts in the light most favorable to supporting the verdict.” ¶ 5 (2014).
State v. Richardson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Richardson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“We resolve any conflicts in the evidence against the defendant and view all facts in the light most favorable to supporting the verdict.” ¶ 5 (2014).
State v. Antone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Antone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶11 We review whether sufficient evidence supports a conviction de novo, “resolv[ing] any conflicts in the evidence against the defendant and view[ing] all facts in the light most favorable to supporting the verdict.” ¶ 5 (2014).
State v. Knight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Knight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 168 (2016); ¶ 5 (2014).
Prosise v. Hon kottke/state 466 P.3d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Prosise v. Hon kottke/state 466 P.3d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Shephard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Shephard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Lemons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Lemons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Koch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Koch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Abelardo Chaparro v. David C Shinn 459 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2020
Abelardo Chaparro v. David C Shinn 459 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2020
“Absent statutory definitions, courts apply common meanings and may look to dictionaries.” ¶ 6 (2014) (internal citations omitted).
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 11 (2014) (jury must decide, based on the evidence presented, whether injuries sustained qualify under A.R.S.
State v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019