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. Ojeda, 769 P.2d 1006.

64 citing documents.

  • State v. Stevenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. Stevenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. Trotter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Trotter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    See, (“Unchallenged information presented by a county probation officer concerning communications and records within the probation department would normally be considered reliable information.”).
  • State v. Campos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Campos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    (“In the sentencing context, if the judge relies on inappropriate factors .
  • State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    -62 (1989) (citations omitted) (requiring remand for resentencing where “it is unclear whether the judge would have imposed the same sentence absent the inappropriate factors”).
  • Ellesse J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Ellesse J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Meeks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Meeks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    When the superior court considers an improper aggravating factor in imposing sentence, we will affirm the sentence “only where the record clearly shows the [superior] court would have reached the same result even without consideration of the improper factors.”
  • State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶45 Our supreme court has held that when on appeal from a probation revocation the appellate court affirms fewer than all violations leading to revocation, the court must remand the matter for a new disposition hearing “unless the record clearly shows the trial judge would have made the same disposition even without consideration of the violations set aside on appeal.” -64 (1989) (citing Ojeda); accord Martin, 171 Ariz. at 161 (stating “the trial court appears to have relied upon the term 20 vio
  • State v. Costa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Costa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    (holding that when one or more of the trial court’s findings are set aside, the sentence should be set aside “unless the record clearly shows the trial judge would have made the same disposition even without consideration of the violations set aside on appeal”).
  • State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • State of Arizona v. James Darrell Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    It thus maintains the court would impose the same sentence in any further proceeding.12 -62, -08 (1989) (if judge relies on inappropriate sentencing factor, we “affirm without remand only where the record clearly shows the trial court would have reached the same result even without consideration of the improper factors”).
  • State v. Trujillo 257 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State v. Trujillo 257 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    .3d 756 , 770 n. 7 (App.2005) (affirming presumptive sentence, even when trial court referenced lack of remorse as an aggravating factor, based on the “number of additional aggravating factors the trial court cited” and because “ ‘the record clearly shows the trial court would have reached the same result even without consideration of the [arguably] improper faetor[ ].’ ” ( , )).
  • State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    In view of the number of additional aggravating factors the trial court cited and the court’s imposition of a presumptive sentence, “the record clearly shows the trial court would have reached the same result even without consideration of the [arguably] improper factor[].”
  • State v. Chiappetta 107 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State v. Chiappetta 107 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State v. Pena 104 P.3d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Pena 104 P.3d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    -57 , -92 (App.1995) ( , ).
  • State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Jose Uzarraga Alvarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State v. Bass 31 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Bass 31 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Coy v. Fields 27 P.3d 799 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Coy v. Fields 27 P.3d 799 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    Because we cannot say that the respondent judge necessarily would have suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation had he known the probationary term could be no longer than three years, , we remand for sentencing anew.
  • State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    (“[I]f the judge relies on inappropriate factors and it is unclear whether the judge would have imposed the same sentence absent the inappropriate factors, the case must be remanded for re-sentencing.”).
  • State v. Dominguez 967 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Dominguez 967 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Garza 962 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Garza 962 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1998
    “In the sentencing context, if the judge relies on inappropriate factors and it is unclear whether the judge would have imposed the same sentence absent the inappropriate factors, the case must be remanded for resentencing.” , (quoting Thurlow, 148 Ariz. at 20 , 712 P.2d at 933 ).
  • State v. Harvey 974 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Harvey 974 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Tinajero 935 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Tinajero 935 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Hardwick 905 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Hardwick 905 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    When a trial court rehes on both proper and improper factors in aggravating a sentence, this court wEl uphold its decision “only where the record clearly shows the *657 trial court would have reached the same result even without consideration of the improper factors.”
  • State v. Williams 898 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Williams 898 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    (no remand necessary where record clearly shows that sentence would have been the same even without consideration of improper factors).
  • State v. Alvarado 875 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Alvarado 875 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    See, , (remanding for new disposition hearing unless record “clearly shows the trial judge would have made the same disposition even without consideration of the violations set aside on appeal”); , (remanding for resentencing
  • State v. Anderson 887 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. Anderson 887 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
    “In the sentencing context, if the judge relies on inappropriate factors and it is unclear whether the judge would have imposed the same sentence absent the inappropriate factors, the ease must be remanded for resentencing.”