Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Prentiss, 786 P.2d 932.

67 citing documents.

Joel Carson v. Hon. gentry/state Ariz. 2025
Joel Carson v. Hon. gentry/state Ariz. 2025
10 CARSON V. GENTRY Opinion of the Court prosecutor makes the determination whether to file criminal charges and which charges to file.” (acknowledging that “the executive branch has the power to decide what criminal charges to file”).
State of Arizona v. Edwardo Serrato III Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. Edwardo Serrato III Ariz. 2025
(discussing separation of powers and noting that “courts as an institution are not involved in the wisdom of the legislation”); see also Scalia & Garner, supra ¶ 15, at 388–89 (“Rather than resolving uncertainty, legislative history normally induces it.
In the Matter of April Arlene Sponsel Ariz. 2025
In the Matter of April Arlene Sponsel Ariz. 2025
Az Petition Partners v. Hon. thompson/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Az Petition Partners v. Hon. thompson/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Vivek a Patel 486 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Vivek a Patel 486 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Christopher Arevalo 470 P.3d 644 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Christopher Arevalo 470 P.3d 644 Ariz. 2020
Indeed, our constitutionally mandated separation of powers, proclaimed in article 3, “is part of an overall constitutional scheme to protect individual rights.”
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶8 Even were we to take judicial notice of this policy, the MCSO cannot correct an illegally imposed sentence―that power rests squarely with the judicial branch of government.2 (noting judiciary’s sole and unrestricted power to “decid[e] what a sentence should be” within statutory sentencing limits).
Cook v. State 281 P.3d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cook v. State 281 P.3d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
The separation of powers doctrine “protect[s] one branch against the overreaching of any other branch” and is “part of an overall constitutional scheme to protect individual rights.” -85 , -36 (1989).
State v. Montes 245 P.3d 879 Ariz. 2011
State v. Montes 245 P.3d 879 Ariz. 2011
State v. Rios 237 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Rios 237 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
-85 , -36 (1989); accord State ex rel.
Seisinger v. Siebel 195 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Seisinger v. Siebel 195 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Rather, “[t]he mandate of the doctrine is to protect one branch against the overreaching of any other branch.” -85 , -36 (1990).
STATE EX REL. BRANNAN v. Williams 171 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
STATE EX REL. BRANNAN v. Williams 171 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(“[T]he executive branch has the power to decide what criminal charges to file.”); , (“It is clearly within the sound discretion of the prosecutor to determine whether to file charges and which charges to file.”).
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
endation); , (holding that DUI sentencing statute that permitted the trial court to impose an alternative sentence “based upon the prosecutor’s recommendation” was unconstitutional in violation of Article 3 because “the decision to mitigate a sentence properly belongs to the judge and not the prosecutor”); , (“[O]nce the legislature provides the court with the power to use sentencing discretion, the legislature cannot then limit the court’s exercise of discretion by empowering the executive bran
Ottaway v. Smith 113 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Ottaway v. Smith 113 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
egislative and executive departments have powers that determine a defendant’s right to a jury trial: “The legislature has the exclusive power to declare what the law shall be,” which necessarily includes the power to “determine[ ] what is a crime and what punishment may be exacted for its breach,” and “the executive branch has the power to decide what criminal charges to file.”
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Fund I v. Town of Surprise, , , (court should not declare entire statute unconstitutional if constitutional and unconstitutional portions can be severed).
City of Tempe v. Outdoor Systems, Inc. 32 P.3d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
City of Tempe v. Outdoor Systems, Inc. 32 P.3d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
86-A7, (striking unconstitutional language in a statute while upholding the remainder of the statute).
Andrews v. Willrich 29 P.3d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Andrews v. Willrich 29 P.3d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
County of Maricopa, ¶ 37 , , (“The separation of powers does not require a ‘hermetic sealing off' of the three branches of government.”).
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
Fund I v. Town of Surprise
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Babe's Cabaret v. City of Scottsdale 3 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Babe's Cabaret v. City of Scottsdale 3 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(the legislature usurps the function of the courts when it purports to declare the meaning of existing law).
Randolph v. Groscost 989 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1999
Randolph v. Groscost 989 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1999
We will not, however, declare an entire statute “unconstitutional if the constitutional portions of the statute can be separated from that which is unconstitutional.”
McComb v. Superior Court 943 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Block 942 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1997
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Block 942 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1997
“The legislature has the exclusive power to declare what the law shall be.”
State v. Walker 914 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Walker 914 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(executive branch has power to enhance punishment); , 760 P.2d *242 608, 607 (App.1988) (upholding mandatory sentencing statutes).
State v. Baum 893 P.2d 1301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995