Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Wagstaff, 794 P.2d 118.

135 citing documents.

State v. Jackson 924 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Cty., No. Jv-508801 901 P.2d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Cty., No. Jv-508801 901 P.2d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
“Defining crimes and fixing penalties are legislative, not judicial functions.” , (citing State v. Marquez , , ).
State v. Krum 903 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1995
State v. Krum 903 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1995
Disagreeing with the trial court, the court of appeals concluded that the third-party affidavits Krum presented with his second Rule 32 , modified on other grounds
State v. Krum 893 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Krum 893 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Petitioner counters that his counsel’s failure to submit third-party affidavits to the court constitutes ineffectiveness because similar affidavits were found by this court to establish a , modified on other grounds
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County 887 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County 887 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gonzalez v. Satrustegui 870 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gonzalez v. Satrustegui 870 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Dunn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 866 P.2d 858 Ariz. 1994
Dunn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 866 P.2d 858 Ariz. 1994
State Ex Rel. Hance v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 875 P.2d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State Ex Rel. Hance v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 875 P.2d 824 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Matter of Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2
Lowing v. Allstate Insurance 859 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1993
Lowing v. Allstate Insurance 859 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1993
Matter of *104 Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2
State v. Williams 854 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
State v. Williams 854 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
Saunders v. Board of Pardons & Paroles 847 P.2d 1124 Ariz. 1993
Saunders v. Board of Pardons & Paroles 847 P.2d 1124 Ariz. 1993
State v. Womack 847 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Womack 847 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
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. Gandara 847 P.2d 606 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Gandara 847 P.2d 606 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
The imposition of the prison term as a condition of probation does not raise the separation of powers problem that concerned our supreme court in State v. Wagstaff
State v. Bortz 821 P.2d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Everhart 819 P.2d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Everhart 819 P.2d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Bortz 821 P.2d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
modified, , (where petitioner failed to specify in motion for rehearing specifically how trial court erred, appellate court declined to consider claims).
State v. Lyons 804 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1990
State v. Lyons 804 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1990
State v. Berger 793 P.2d 1093 Ariz. 1990
State v. Berger 793 P.2d 1093 Ariz. 1990
*428 , we affirmed the court of appeals’ determination that the lifetime parole provision violates separation of powers, but applied a different analysis.