Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Dawson, 792 P.2d 741.

223 citing documents.

State v. Price Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Price Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Perryman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Perryman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Blomdahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Blomdahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(“In the absence of a timely appeal or cross-appeal by the state seeking to correct an illegally lenient sentence, an appellate court has no 6 STATE v. BLOMDAHL Decision of the Court subject matter jurisdictio
State v. Rodvelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Rodvelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(“In the absence of a timely appeal or cross-appeal by the state seeking to correct an illegally lenient sentence, an appellate court has no subject matter jurisdiction to consider that issue.”).
State v. Mowers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Mowers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“the [S]tate’s failure to timely appeal or cross-appeal acts as a jurisdictional bar to its raising the error in defendant’s appeal”).
State v. Shervington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Shervington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Abelardo Chaparro v. David C Shinn 459 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2020
Abelardo Chaparro v. David C Shinn 459 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2020
State v. Shelton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Shelton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“In the absence of a timely appeal or cross appeal by the State seeking to correct an illegally lenient sentence, an appellate court has no subject matter jurisdiction to consider that issue.”).
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Moreover, our supreme court has made it clear that the “failure to impose a legal sentence is one of those rare situations from which the [S]tate can seek review even if it failed to object in the trial court.”
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Reilly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Reilly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
However, the State has not filed a cross-appeal, we do not correct this error.
State v. Lester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Eschrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Eschrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Timlick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Timlick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Steed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Steed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
However, the State has not filed a cross-appeal, we do not correct this error.
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Carter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“In the absence of a timely appeal or cross-appeal by the state seeking to correct an illegally lenient sentence, an appellate court has no subject matter jurisdiction to consider that issue.”).
State v. Carter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA Dawson, (“In the absence of a timely appeal or cross-appeal by the state seeking to correct an illegally lenient sentence, an appellate court has no subject matter jurisdiction to consider that issue.”).
State v. Drummond Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Drummond Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Griffiths Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Griffiths Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Rice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Rice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“In the absence of a timely appeal or cross-appeal by the state seeking to correct an illegally lenient sentence, an appellate court has no subject matter jurisdiction to consider that issue.”).
State v. Hastings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hastings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Also, Hastings argues the State’s failure to respond to his Motion “waived the opportunity to amend sentence.”1 We are unpersuaded by either argument.