DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gordon, 778 P.2d 1204.

153 citing documents.

  • State v. Maldonado 78 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    made punishable in different ways by different sections of the laws may be punished under both, but in no event may sentences be other than concurrent.” -16 , -12 (1989)(The statute generally applies when there are multiple punishments for a single act.).
  • State v. Sepahi 78 P.3d 732 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Sepahi 78 P.3d 732 Ariz. 2003
    of appeals to consider the State’s argument.4 4 As the court of appeals noted, held that “§ 13- 116 is paramount in the statutory scheme of sentencing,” and prohibits consecutive sentences under § 13-604.01(K) P.2d 1204 (1989).
  • State v. Sepahi 61 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State v. Sepahi 61 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    "The definitive decision on the subject of whether a , "
  • State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Siddle 47 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    313 n. 5, , 1209 n. 5 (1989).
  • State v. Schaffer 48 P.3d 1202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Schaffer 48 P.3d 1202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    (1), 13-701, 13-702, and 13-801.” Count Two charged that Defendant assaulted the same victim while “knowing or having reason to know that the victim was a person summoned or directed by a licensed health care practitioner engaged in his professional duties.” ¶3 On the first scheduled day of trial, Defendant filed a “Motion to Dismiss State’s Allegation of Dangerous[ness].” , Defendant argued that his prosthetic arm 2 could not be a “dangerous instrument” or “deadly weapon.” 3 After hearing argum
  • State v. French 7 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. French 7 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    § 41-1604.10 and contends the trial court abused its discretion “in finding that the petitioner’s sentences should not have been ordered consecutive under State v. Gordon[, , ].” As to both claims, French simply refers to memoranda filed below, incorporating them by reference.
  • Jardanowski v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 3 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Jardanowski v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 3 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    § 13-116); -16 , -12 (1989).
  • State v. Riley 992 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Riley 992 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Cornish 968 P.2d 606 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Cornish 968 P.2d 606 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    § 13-116 , defendant argues that consecutive sentences were improperly ordered.
  • State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
    § 13-116 provides, in part, that “[a]n act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different sections of the laws may be punished under both, but in no event may the sentences be other than concurrent.” The statute thus precludes the imposition of consecutive sentences for two offenses that are really a “single act.”
  • State v. Cook 916 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Cook 916 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    313 n. 5, , 1209 n. 5 (1989), it stated: ...
  • State v. Williams 898 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Williams 898 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    We are unable determine from the record whether the trial court properly assessed the $600.00 P.2d 1204 (1989)
  • Hernandez v. Superior Court 880 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Hernandez v. Superior Court 880 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Styers 865 P.2d 765 Ariz. 1993
    The test used to determine whether defendant’s conduct “constitutes a single act, which requires concurrent sentences, or multiple acts, which permit consecutive sentences,”
  • State v. Harper 868 P.2d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Harper 868 P.2d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    to insist that, because the offenses are indistinguishable, concurrent sentences are required by Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated (“A.R.S.”) section 13-116, which prohibits double punishment.
  • State v. Alexander 858 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Alexander 858 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    The definitive decision on the subject of whether a
  • State v. Greene 866 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Greene 866 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    Second, he alternatively argues that, if the infliction of that injury supported a finding of dangerousness on all four offenses
  • State v. Runningeagle 859 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Runningeagle 859 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1993
  • 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
  • State v. Boldrey 861 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. Boldrey 861 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
    § 13-116, 2 which prohibits double punishment for one “act” or “omission,” and our supreme court’s
  • State v. Everhart 819 P.2d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Everhart 819 P.2d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Lewis 816 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Lewis 816 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Jimenez 799 P.2d 785 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Jimenez 799 P.2d 785 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Belyeu 795 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Belyeu 795 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    Legality of Consecutive Sentences Finally, Belyeu argues that it was impermissible for the trial court to impose consecutive sentences for second-degree burglary and criminal damage, , and A.R.S.
  • State v. Khoshbin 804 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990