Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Orduno, 769 P.2d 1010.

39 citing documents.

State v. Hon. brain/hu 422 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hon. brain/hu 422 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(exempting felony driving under the influence offenses from dangerous offense enhancements).
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Second, Campa’s P.2d 1010 (1989), and Orduno has been limited so that it only prohibits an enhanced sentence based on the use of a motor vehicle as a “dangerous instrument” in a DUI case.
State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
defendant argues that an allegation of dangerousness is inappropriate in cases in which the victim was a passenger in the defendant’s vehicle rather than a person outside the vehicle.
State v. Pitts 874 P.2d 962 Ariz. 1994
State v. Pitts 874 P.2d 962 Ariz. 1994
1 2The court of appeals reversed, holding that defendant’s prior DUI convictions were necessarily included elements of the current offense of aggravated DUI and, thus, , not eligible for consideration as aggravating factors under A.R.S.
State v. Magana 874 P.2d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Pitts 870 P.2d 1155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Pitts 870 P.2d 1155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
our supreme court considered whether the operation of a motor vehicle in a DUI case may also be deemed the use of a *62 dangerous instrument for sentence enhancement purposes under A.R.S.
State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Freeland 863 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Garcia 860 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Garcia 860 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
prohibits using an element of the underlying offense to enhance punishment.
State v. Snead 854 P.2d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Snead 854 P.2d 1183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
is limited to DUI cases.
State v. Gillen 830 P.2d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Lara 830 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1992
State v. Gillen 830 P.2d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
where enhancement was permitted because the aggravating factor was among those specified by the legislature, , limiting Bly by precluding en *360 hancement when the aggravating factor, although among those legislatively specified, is “an essential and necessary element of the crime____” 159 Ariz. at 566 , 769 P.2d at 102 .
State v. Lara 830 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1992
The court of appeals remanded for resentencing, , to hold that because death of the victim is an “essential and irreducible” element of manslaughter, the trial court erred by considering the death as an aggravating factor at sentencing.
State v. Perez Lara 823 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Perez Lara 823 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Williams 813 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Campa 814 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1991
State v. Malone 830 P.2d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Malone 830 P.2d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Recently, however, , the same supreme court declined to view an automobile as an aggravating factor for sentence enhancement precisely because it is a defining element of a DUI offense.
State v. Campa 814 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1991
We granted review on this point and requested supplemental briefs to shed light on the proper interplay between Titles 13 and 28, and to assist us in determining what effect, if any, , and State ex rel.
State v. Williams 813 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Appellant argues that an automobile cannot properly serve as a dangerous instrument for aggravation purposes because the aggravated assault elements were identical to the elements of his DUI
State ex rel. Romley v. Hall 821 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State ex rel. Romley v. Hall 821 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
We decide that the state is entitled to allege that the crime is a dangerous offense because the law on this issue has been so long settled in favor of the state, , upon which the respondent relied in the trial court, is restricted to DUI cases.
State v. Garcia 799 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Garcia 799 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
1 On appeal, he claims that: *549 (1) the state failed to present “relation-back” , (2) the aggravated assault cannot be a , (3) the prosecutor improperly argued to the jury that the charge against defendant was evidence; and (4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
State v. Sexton 787 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Sexton 787 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Howard 785 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Howard 785 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989