Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Henry, 734 P.2d 93.

27 citing documents.

State v. Blackwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
are committed at the same place, on the same victim or group of victims, and at the same time,’” they are committed on same occasion.)
State v. Stock 207 P.3d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Stock 207 P.3d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
§ 13-604(M) (2003), , ¶ 6 , (two prior offenses were treated as one transaction committed on same occasion for purposes of sentence enhancement under § 13-604(M)).
State of Arizona v. Mikal Omar Rasul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Mikal Omar Rasul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
“The common meaning of the phrase ‘same occasion’ is same time, same place.”
State v. Derello 18 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Derello 18 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 9' No “all-encompassing test” exists to determine whether different crimes occur on the “same occasion.”
State v. Kelly 950 P.2d 1153 Ariz. 1997
State v. Kelly 950 P.2d 1153 Ariz. 1997
Consistently, , we reiterated the factors test and held: [W]hen different crimes, even though unrelated in nature, are committed at the same place, on the same victim or group of victims, and at the same time or as part of a continuous series of criminal acts, they should be considered as having been committed o
State v. Sheppard 876 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1994
State v. Sheppard 876 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1994
As this court has repeatedly stated, there is no all-encompassing test for determining whether two offenses constitute the “same occasion.” Shulark, 162 Ariz. at 485 , 784 P.2d at 691 ; , -97 , -70 (1985), overruled on other grounds by Noble, 152 Ariz. at 288, 731 P.2d at 1232 (providing extensive discussion of various tests used in determining what constitutes “same occasion”).
State v. Arnoldi 860 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Arnoldi 860 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Because the evidence here was that appellant committed several offenses on five separate occasions, each of which involved a single victim and a continuous series of criminal acts, , the trial court was restricted as to the number of predicate offenses that it could use for enhancement purposes.
State v. Smith 818 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Smith 818 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
The other case on which he relies, , was decided by the supreme court on March 4, 1987, before the occurrence of defendant’s offenses, change of plea, sentence, and appeal.
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
1912 , 95 L.Ed.2d 517 (1987); , (“different crimes committed in ‘spatio-temporal proximity’ and forming part of the same criminal episode against the same victim or group of victims are crimes committed on the ‘same occasion’ ” for purposes of sentencing under A.R.S.
State v. Shearer 793 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Shearer 793 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Shulark 784 P.2d 688 Ariz. 1989
State v. Shulark 784 P.2d 688 Ariz. 1989
A recent case involving the issue of “same occasion”
State v. Bedoni 779 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Bedoni 779 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Vild 746 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Vild 746 P.2d 1304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
the appellant forced his way into the office of an apartment complex, took money, and raped the manager.