Cited by

(in criminal cases, “[o]ral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry”), (in civil cases, “[t]he judgment as signed and filed by the court .

A witness’ credibility “goes to the weight of the statements, not their admissibility,” and issues of credibility fall to the jury

(if a defendant is held in custody on two matters for which consecutive sentences are ordered, the defendant may not receive “double credit” toward both sentences).

§ 13-708(D), the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence expressly ordered “the mitigated term of six years plus the two years that is required.” Although the written sentencing order does not include this finding or list the six plus two years separately, the “[o]ral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.” (citation omitted).

ch shall govern.” (citations omitted); ¶ 38 (2013) (noting that remand is unnecessary to resolve apparent conflict between a court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence and the resulting written minute entry when the discrepancy can be clearly resolved by looking at the record) ().

(holding State’s failure to formally file all operative pleadings was harmless error because defendant had actual, constitutionally adequate notice prior to trial); (finding no error when State’s allegation of the dangerous nature of the offense was untimely but defendant had notice based on the nature of the crime alleged); but see Benak, 199 Ariz. at 337–38, ¶¶ 16–19 (remanding for resentencing when State failed to refer to the relevant sentencing statute or mention

When there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence, the “[o]ral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.”

“When a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written minute entry can be clearly resolved by looking at the record, the ‘[o]ral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.’” ¶ 38 (2013) (alteration in original) ().

¶50 “When a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written minute entry can be clearly resolved by looking at the record, the ‘[o]ral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.’” Ovante, 231 Ariz. at 188, ¶ 38 (alteration in original) ().

“When a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written minute entry can be clearly resolved by looking at the record, the ‘[o]ral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.’” ¶ 38 (2013) ().

P. 26.16; (indicating that the court can order the correction of the record so that it clearly identifies the intended sentence); (noting that if a record indicates the minute entry contains a clerical error, remand is unnecessary).

“When a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written minute entry can be clearly resolved by looking at the record, the ‘[o]ral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.’” ¶ 38 (2013) () (alteration in original).

(duplicitous indictment not prejudicial where defense was that the charged offenses never took place).

¶ 7 (App. 2005) (“Although, under some circumstances, an indictment's lack of specificity might hamper a defendant’s ability to rebut or defend against the charges, Ramsey has not shown how his defense was impaired or prejudiced by the indictment against him.”); (finding no prejudice because defendant’s only defense was that the offenses did not occur and the victims fabricated their stories).

(“Oral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.”).

P. 26.16(a) (“The judgment of conviction and sentencing on the judgment are complete and valid at the time the court orally pronounces them in open court.”); (“Oral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.”).

Bass, 198 Ariz. at 577 ().

(an exception to the requirements of Rule 17 applies where the defendant admits to prior felony convictions at trial).

¶ 10 (App. 2008) ( and then Ariz. R. Crim.

An excited utterance is a “statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.” Rule 803(2); –84, –46 (1989).

An excited utterance is a “statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.” Rule 803(2); -84 , -46 (1989).