Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Powers, 742 P.2d 792.

39 citing documents.

State v. Pacheco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Pacheco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Ruelas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Ruelas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
§§ 12-269, -116, -116.04, -116.08, and -116.09
State v. Leah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Leah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 12-114.01(A), had not been properly imposed because the court had failed to impose it “in open court with the defendant present.” (citing Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Norris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Norris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(vacating the “felony assessment” imposed by minute entry because “the proper method of correcting an illegal sentence is not by minute entry,” but “in open court with the defendant present”).
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Reyes 307 P.3d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Reyes 307 P.3d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(holding that the proper way to impose a statutorily-authorized fee is “in open court with the defendant present” rather than by minute entry).
State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
The Arizona Supreme Court reached a , which involved the same increased statutory maximum penalty as in Hurley .
State v. Galati Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 985 P.2d 494 Ariz. 1999
State v. Galati Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 985 P.2d 494 Ariz. 1999
(a jury must determine the existence of all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt).
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
State v. Scott 924 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Scott 924 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
our supreme court noted that, ordinarily, jury trial and due process rights apply only to elements of the crime charged and not to factual findings used only to enhance punishment after conviction.
State v. Aragon 912 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Aragon 912 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Foy 859 P.2d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Foy 859 P.2d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(sentence vacated on ground sentence was not corrected in open court with defendant present, even though defendant did not appear to have raised issue)
State v. Snead 854 P.2d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Snead 854 P.2d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
While the felony penalty assessment is itself part of the sentence and must be made at sentencing with the defendant present, , , Ariz.R.Crim.P.
State v. Lane 841 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Lane 841 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
The statute mandates a “flat” sentence for an offense “committed while the person is on probation for a conviction of a felony offense or parole, work furlough or any other release or escape from confinement for conviction of a felony offense.” Defendant maintains that his sentence was enhanced because of his “escape from confinement.” , he contends that, while his escape status may be used to enhance sentencing for other felony offenses, it may not enhance the sentence for the escape itself.
State v. Barrs 833 P.2d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Barrs 833 P.2d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Anderson 827 P.2d 1129 Ariz. 1992
State v. Anderson 827 P.2d 1129 Ariz. 1992
While Dawson is inapposite, , is more directly on point.
State v. Anderson 819 P.2d 967 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Anderson 819 P.2d 967 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Stevens 744 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Stevens 744 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987