Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Whitney, 768 P.2d 638.

110 citing documents.

State v. Dwyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“Oral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.”) (-05 (App. 1983)).
State v. Higuera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Higuera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Vincent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vincent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶23 “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) ().
State v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
When a discrepancy exists between the oral pronouncement and the minute entry, the “[o]ral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.” (citation omitted).
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
evidence.” However, Lopez offered evidence of the CVSA at trial as part of his attempt to show that his pretrial statements to 3 Although the sentencing minute entry lists the concurrency of the sentences somewhat differently, when a discrepancy exists between the oral pronouncement and the minute entry, the “[o]ral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.” (citation omitted).
State v. Haywood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Haywood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
When a discrepancy exits between the oral pronouncement and the minute entry, the “[o]ral pronouncement in open court controls over the minute entry.”
State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
This Court can order the minute entry corrected if the record clearly identifies the intended sentence.”) ( ).
State v. Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(stating that there is sufficient proof of a prior felony conviction for sentencing purposes if a “defendant admits the prior conviction[] during his testimony at trial”).
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 7, (affirming conviction because defendant failed to articulate how his defense was impaired or how he was prejudiced by the indictment); (concluding that a defendant was not denied an “essential right to his defense” when his defense was a denial that the alleged acts had occurred).
State of Arizona v. Manuel Alejandro Delgado 303 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Manuel Alejandro Delgado 303 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
make[s] a precise pleading of prior jeopardy impossible in the event of a later prosecution.’” quoting State v. Whitney, 159 Ariz. 476, 480
State v. Valentini 299 P.3d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Valentini 299 P.3d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr. 291 P.3d 974 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr. 291 P.3d 974 Ariz. 2013
¶38 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.”
State of Arizona v. Xavier Hipolito Estrella 286 P.3d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Xavier Hipolito Estrella 286 P.3d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Whitney, 159 Ariz. 476, 480, see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State of Arizona v. Maxamilano Paredes-Solano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Maxamilano Paredes-Solano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
make[s] a precise pleading of prior jeopardy impossible in the event of a later 12 prosecution.’”
State v. Klokic 196 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Klokic 196 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
An indictment is subject to dismissal as duplicitous if it charges “two or more distinct and separate offenses in a single count.” Schroeder, 167 Ariz. at 51, 804 P.2d at 780; , (“The law in Arizona requires that each offense must be charged in a separate count.”); Ariz. R.Crim.
State v. Brown 177 P.3d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Brown 177 P.3d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
make[s] a precise pleading of prior jeopardy impossible in the event of a later prosecution.’”
State of Arizona v. Ricky Lee Sabin 146 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Ricky Lee Sabin 146 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
(amendment 23 of information to include allegation of dangerousness though untimely did not prejudice defendant because he was aware of element from facts and prepared defense accordingly).
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
(defendant not denied “essential right to his defense” when defense was denial that offenses had occurred); People v. Gear, 23 Cal.
State v. Parks 116 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Parks 116 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 37 In our view, , presents such a situation.
State v. Davis 79 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2003
State v. Davis 79 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2003
State v. Nichols 33 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Nichols 33 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(allegation of dangerous *238 nature offense); , (allegation of on-parole status); , (allegation of intent to promote criminal street gang).
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
State v. Petrak 8 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Petrak 8 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(citing Wong Tai v. United States, 273 U.S. 77, 81 , 47 S.Ct.
State v. Lujan 911 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995