DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

221 citing documents.

  • State v. Reidhead Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Reidhead 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. Covarrubias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Covarrubias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    (“[F]ailure to impose a sentence in conformity with the mandatory provisions of the sentencing statute makes that sentence ‘illegal.’”); ¶ 4 (App. 2012) (illegal sentence constitutes fundamental, prejudicial error); –20 (App. 1993)
  • Calderon-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Calderon-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Fears Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Fears Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    -84 (1990) (§ 13-4037 allows "an appellate court to reduce an illegally severe sentence.").
  • State v. Meyers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Meyers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Maloy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Maloy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Bracy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Bracy 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. Beard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Beard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Patino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Patino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ("Our power to correct 4 STATE v. PATINO Decision of the Court an illegal sentence to correspond to a verdict is predicated on an appeal by the state.").
  • State v. Stenglein Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Stenglein Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    However, an illegal sentence that favors the appellant — such as excess presentence incarceration credit — cannot be corrected without a timely cross-appeal by the State, –82 (1990), which did not occur here.
  • State v. Watson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Watson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Jorgensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Jorgensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶14 However, we will not correct an “illegally lenient sentence in the absence of proper appeals or cross-appeals by the state.” -82 (1990).
  • State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Barlow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Barlow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Ottar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Ottar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (stating that, absent a timely appeal or cross-appeal from the State, an appellate court cannot correct an illegally lenient sentence).
  • Kaleta v. Hon. bernstein/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Kaleta v. Hon. bernstein/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    BERNSTEIN/STATE Decision of the Court ¶8 Petitioner suggests the State was required to file an appeal in order to prevent the purported modification to his community service hours from becoming a “final” sentence.
  • State v. Stiefel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Stiefel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Cabrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Cabrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    (noting that this court does not have jurisdiction to consider an illegally lenient sentence when the State has not filed an appeal or cross-appeal).
  • State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Austin Garrett Hansen 345 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    (noting “right of appeal in criminal cases is not known to the common law”).
  • State v. Montano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Montano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Mayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Mayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    -82, -45 (1990) (noting that in the absence of a cross-appeal by the State, appellate courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to correct a sentencing error raised by the State).
  • State v. Maestas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Maestas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (“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.”).