Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tocco, 750 P.2d 874.

91 citing documents.

Greg Mills v. Abtr Ariz. 2022
Greg Mills v. Abtr Ariz. 2022
See Brush & Nib, 247 Ariz. at 295 ¶ 111 (resolving an as-applied challenge to an ordinance based on the facts unique to the case); (stating that ordinarily a person whose conduct clearly falls within the valid portion of a statute may not challenge the statute for vagueness).
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 (1974)
State v. Ibarra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Ibarra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 (1974) (“One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”)
State v. Francisco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Francisco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 (1974) ("One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness."); ¶ 15 (App. 2000).
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 456 P.3d 453 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 456 P.3d 453 Ariz. 2020
¶12 We review Reed’s challenge to § 13-106 de novo as an issue of law, ¶ 34 (2018), and start with the strong presumption the statute is constitutional
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
–20 (1988) (“We are charged with the responsibility of giving a statute a constitutional construction whenever possible.
State v. Reed 435 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Reed 435 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Tocco , , 119, , 877 (1988).
State v. Meeds 421 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Meeds 421 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Denson 382 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Denson 382 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
see United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 304 , 128 S.Ct.
State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“[W]e have an obligation to interpret statutes so as to uphold their constitutionality, where possible,” (citing Business Realty of Ariz., ), and we strongly presume a statute to be constitutional, ().
State v. Wiggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wiggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
i. Vagueness Challenge ¶7 “A legislative enactment is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to give persons of ordinary intelligence reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited and fails to provide explicit standards for those who apply it.” (citations omitted).
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 308 P.3d 1152 Ariz. 2013
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 308 P.3d 1152 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
¶30 In sum, Ramsey has not met his burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that § 13-1417 is unconstitutional.6 -20, -78 (1988) (upholding against vagueness challenge statutory definition of “criminal syndicate” in former A.R.S.
State v. Hazlett 73 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Hazlett 73 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(over-breadth attack is directed to application rather than facial invalidity of statute).
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Gravano 60 P.3d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Gravano 60 P.3d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State of Arizona v. Amiel Proto 58 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State of Arizona v. Amiel Proto 58 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. McMahon 38 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. McMahon 38 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Carrasco 33 P.3d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Carrasco 33 P.3d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
tatute criminalize[s] protected speech.” “A statute is unconstitutionally vague if it does not provide persons of ordinary intelligence reasonable notice of prohibited behavior and if it ‘fails to provide explicit standards for those who apply it,’ allowing for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”
State v. Thompson 34 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Thompson 34 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
In Re Moises L. 18 P.3d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
In Re Moises L. 18 P.3d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
A statute is unconstitutionally vague “if it fails to give persons of ordinary intelligence reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited and fails to provide explicit standards for those who apply it.”
State v. Anderson 16 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Anderson 16 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(citing Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09 , 92 S.Ct.
State v. Alawy 9 P.3d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Alawy 9 P.3d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
2547 , 41 L.Ed.2d 439 (1974); , (“A defendant whose conduct is clearly proscribed by the core of the statute has no standing to attack” it for vagueness); McLamb, 188 Ariz. at 6 , 932 P.2d at 271 (same).
State v. Wood 8 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Wood 8 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
‘The party challenging the validity of a statute has the burden of overcoming that strong presumption.’ ”