Cited by

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

67 citing documents.

State v. Baum 893 P.2d 1301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
This court has previously acknowledged that “[t]he separation of powers does not require a ‘hermetic sealing off of the three branches of government.”
Espinoza v. Superior Court 886 P.2d 1364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Espinoza v. Superior Court 886 P.2d 1364 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
section 13-604 have been held not to violate the separation of powers doctrine
State Compensation Fund v. Symington 848 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1993
State Compensation Fund v. Symington 848 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1993
quoting from Selective Life Ins.
Norton v. Superior Court 829 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Norton v. Superior Court 829 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Ramsey 831 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Ramsey 831 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Watton 793 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1990
State v. Watton 793 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1990
(“Any rule which inhibits a lawyer at sentencing from revealing, recommending, alleging or discussing mitigating circumstances with that judge fosters injustice.”) The court of appeals has stated: [W]e look with great concern upon any plea agreement which would prevent the court from obt
State v. Dykes 789 P.2d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Dykes 789 P.2d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
“The mandate of the doctrine is to protect one branch against the overreaching of any other branch.”