Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Sammons, 749 P.2d 1372.

28 citing documents.

State v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶20 “Calling an expert witness is a matter of trial strategy[.]”
State v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 13-703(N)] provided he is on notice before trial that the prosecution intends to seek the enhanced punishment provisions of the statute.” (defendant not prejudiced by post-verdict amendment substituting one prior felony conviction for a previously alleged prior conviction); (superior court properly denied post-verdict amendment alleging defendant was on parole on a different case from a different county from that alleged before trial where State did not show “defendant had notice, independent
State v. Franco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Franco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mainez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mainez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(concluding superior court’s ex parte communication that the jurors had “received all the instructions relevant to th[e] case” was harmless, specifically noting “that the judge’s response was in writing and added nothing to the settled instructions which had been given”).
State v. Johansen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Johansen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
A dangerous instrument is “anything that under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used is readily capable of causing death or serious physical that finding was “mere surplusage” as to sentencing in this case, because the court elected to sentence Johansen as a repetitive offender under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)
State v. Francisco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Francisco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
−55 (1988) (court drew no distinction between 13.5(a) and (b) for sentencing enhancement amendment); Cons, 208 Ariz. at 611, ¶ 6.
Moran v. Hon. miles/montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Moran v. Hon. miles/montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
(holding that there was no prejudice when the court sent a written note stating, “You have received all the instructions relevant to this case”).
State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Johnson 8 P.3d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Johnson 8 P.3d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Quinonez 976 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Quinonez 976 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-06 , -09 (App.1996) (affirming use of repeat offender range that was more severe than the dangerous offender range); , (holding that when defendant could receive more time as a repeat offender than as a dangerous offender, the finding of dangerous was “mere surplusage”).
State v. Tovar 930 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Tovar 930 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In Arizona, “error occurs in a criminal case when a trial judge communicates with jurors after they have retired to deliberate unless the defendant and counsel have been notified and been given an opportunity to be present.”
State v. Vickers 885 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1994
State v. Vickers 885 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1994
As such, we have repeatedly acknowledged that “disagreements in trial strategy will not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, provided the challenged conduct had some reasoned basis.”
State v. Delgado 848 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Delgado 848 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Jobe 757 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Jobe 757 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988