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. Bartlett, 830 P.2d 823.

42 citing documents.

  • State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    vacated, 501 U.S. 1246 (1991), on remand
  • State v. Bluhm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Bluhm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶11 in arguing that DCAC enhancements require “something more,” such as physical “dangerousness” to a child.
  • State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    388, ¶¶ 11, 48–49 (2003); –11 (1992).
  • 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
    He was neither immature nor of a subnormal level of intelligence unlike the defendants in Davis, , , 8 and State v. Bartlett (Bartlett II), 9 , , 10 cert.
  • 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
    2880 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1991); , (Bartlett II), to argue that this court should conduct an individualized analysis of the facts and circumstances of his ease to determine whether his sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crime, and to compare his sentence to the sentence that would be imposed for other crimes in Arizona (a
  • State v. Davis 79 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Davis 79 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2003
    We concluded, however, that Justice Kennedy’s , (Bartlett II).
  • 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
  • State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 494 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 494 Ariz. 1996
    (Bartlett II), this court agreed that, at least until the Supreme Court of the United States reached a majority on the issue, it would use the standard articulated by Justice Kennedy to resolve such questions under the Eighth Amendment.
  • State v. Jackson 924 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Jackson 924 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    2680, 2705 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring); , , cert.
  • State v. Stine 906 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Stine 906 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Lujan 911 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Lujan 911 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    He relies on our supreme court’s , , cert.
  • State v. Lamberton 899 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Lamberton 899 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1995
    §§ 13-1410, 13-604.01, and 13-801, argued that his sentence was cruel and unusual punishment based on State v. Bartlett (Bartlett II), , (holding that defendant’s 40-year sentence without possibility of early release for two counts of sexual conduct with a minor violated the Eighth Amendment).
  • State v. Smith 904 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Smith 904 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    2680, 2707 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991); State v. Bartlett (Bartlett II), , , cert.
  • 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
    (quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1005 , 111 S.Ct.
  • State v. Sasak 871 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Sasak 871 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Hamilton 868 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Hamilton 868 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    B. Sentence of Imprisonment: , , cert.
  • 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
  • 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
    2880 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1991), affirmed on remand, , cert.
  • 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
    We note that in his appellate brief, appellant mischaracterizes his Rule 32 , cert.
  • State v. Hatfield 840 P.2d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Hatfield 840 P.2d 300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • 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
    See, , (application of dangerous crimes against children act to defendant’s sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment).