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. Taylor, 773 P.2d 974.

39 citing documents.

  • State v. Brents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Brents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE FRANK McPHERSON 269 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    Instead, he argues his case is similar to the hypothetical situation discussed in State v. Taylor, where our supreme court questioned the propriety of consecutive sentences for a defendant who “acquired all of the photographs at the same time in one book from someone else.”
  • 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
    See State v. Taylor, 160 Ariz. 415, 420, (“The legislature has provided for separate punishment for sexual exploitation of a minor by photographing the minor, A.R.S.
  • State v. Berger 134 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. Berger 134 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2006
    §§ 13-3551(11), - 3553(A)(2); , (affirming fifty consecutive sentences for possession of fifty contraband images obtained over time).
  • State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    Neither could exist without the other.”); United States v. Ketcham, 80 F.3d 789, 793 (3rd Cir.1996) (Statute making criminal “subsequent transportation, distribution, and possession of child pornography discourages its production by depriving would-be producers of a market.”); , (By penalizing possession and production equally, the legislature “convey[s] a statutory intent that the consumer of child pornography be dealt with severely.”); , (“[D]rying up the market is the only way to effectively
  • State v. Long 83 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Long 83 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    ¶ 23 The State contends that the Arizona Supreme Court’s , is binding and compels us to reject Long’s argument.
  • State v. Davis 79 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Davis 79 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2003
    tlett, Davis was caught in the very broad sweep of the governing statute, which makes any sexual conduct with a person younger than fifteen years old by a person older than eighteen years old a “dangerous crime against children,” whether the offense is a rape-incest by a step-parent who forces sex on a trusting ward or a pedophile who uncontrollably preys upon young children, , or the more benign boyfriend-girlfriend situation in which one party is older than eighteen and the other younger than
  • State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    See, , (25 years flat time where defendant sold two marijuana cigarettes to 14-year-old boy); , (2,975 years flat time where defendant convicted of 85 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, sexual conduct with a minor under 15, and attempted sexual conduct with a minor under 15); Zimmer, 178 Ariz. at 410 , 874 P.2d at 967 (51 years flat time where defendant touched 11-year-old victim’s b
  • State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
    Id.; see, -23 , -82 (1989).
  • State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Valdez 894 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Valdez 894 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    The state also argues, , that appellant may properly be convicted for each of the individual pictures developed from the film, because each of the pictures resulted from separate and distinct acts.
  • State v. Zimmer 874 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. Zimmer 874 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
    overruled on other grounds, P.2d 1228 (1987).
  • 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
    It appears that what occurred was, indeed, “a single episode” of sexual conduct, , which culminated in intercourse.
  • State Ex Rel. Bowers v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State Ex Rel. Bowers v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Bartlett 830 P.2d 823 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Kasten 823 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Jackson 821 P.2d 1374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • Followed State v. Kasten 823 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Jackson 821 P.2d 1374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
    § 13-604.01 was applied and argues that his conduct does not approach the conduct in these cases: , (defendant committed various acts with children aged 8 to 18 and had prior sexual offense history); State v. O’Neill, , (victim was two-year-old torn between vagina and rectum); , (defendant molested 10-year
  • State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
    (defendant refused to cooperate with mental health experts).
  • State v. Ross 804 P.2d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Ross 804 P.2d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    (sentence of 25 years for selling small quantity of marijuana to a fourteen-year-old child not cruel and unusual punishment); , (aggregate sentence of 2,975 years for 85 counts of crimes against children not cruel and unusual punishment); , (sentence of 12 years for touching vagina of eight-year-old child not cruel and unusual punishment).
  • State v. Jonas 792 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Jonas 792 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1990
    (aggregate sentence of 2,975 years for 85 counts of crimes against children not cruel and unusual punishment); , , , (App