Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Burge, 804 P.2d 754.

44 citing documents.

State v. Jaynes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Jaynes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-58 (1929) (citation omitted); (affirming denial of self-defense instruction where defendant burglarized a home and did not attempt to withdraw other than "to threaten deadly force to escape from the scene of a crime with stolen property"), n.7 (1990); Kelly, 149 Ariz. at 117 ("Similarly, the defendant in this case was convicted of the crime of trespass, which shows he provoked the altercation and cannot now claim self-defense.").
State v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 13-703’s predecessor statute was sufficient to put the defendant on notice the State sought an enhanced sentence), ); ¶ 16 (App. 2001) (“In some cases, reference in the indictment or information to the statute under which the enhancement is authorized may constitute sufficient notice.”).
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“It cannot be seriously argued that death does not involve serious physical injury as defined by [statute].”)
State v. Medrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Medrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Benak, 199 Ariz. at 337, ¶ 16 ().
Juan Carlos Vicente Sanchez v. Hon. ainley/state of Arizona 321 P.3d 415 Ariz. 2014
Juan Carlos Vicente Sanchez v. Hon. ainley/state of Arizona 321 P.3d 415 Ariz. 2014
this Court held that a prior conviction is not a “public offense” but rather something that enhances punishment.
State v. King 235 P.3d 240 Ariz. 2010
State v. King 235 P.3d 240 Ariz. 2010
See, Dumaine, 162 Ariz. at 404, 783 P.2d at 1196; P.2d 754 (1990).
State v. Soliz 219 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2009
State v. Soliz 219 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2009
Second, because the state would usually be prohibited from seeking a sentence longer than initially imposed after a defendant’s successful appeal, see Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 28-29 (1974); n.7, n.7 (1990), a remand after a reversal under the Henley approach would be conducted before an eight-person jury.
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
ffense instruction, the court must examine “whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.” ( overruled on other grounds, P.2d 754 (1990)).
State of Arizona v. Robert Michael Hollenback Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Robert Michael Hollenback Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
§ 13-604 [in the information] was sufficient to put 7 [defendant] on notice that the prosecutor would seek an enhanced sentence.”), P.2d 754 (1990).
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(A prosecutor’s refusal to plea bargain due to a personal dislike of the accused’s counsel is conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which could, under appropriate facts, warrant discipline.), overruled, on other grounds
Raney v. Lindberg 76 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Raney v. Lindberg 76 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(citation to § 13-604 in indictment sufficient to place defendant on notice of “dangerousness” allegation).
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
se of armed robbery, “the test is ‘whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.’ ” Krone, 182 Ariz. at 323 , 897 P.2d at 625 ( , (Detrich I)) (quoting State v. (Vivian Rhea) Noriega, , , 28 n. 7, , 757 n. 7 (1990)).
American Family Mutual Insurance v. White 65 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
American Family Mutual Insurance v. White 65 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(“A.R.S.”) §§ 13-604(1) (2001), -1204(B) (Supp.2002)
State v. Benak 18 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Benak 18 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Jansing 918 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jansing 918 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
overruled on other grounds, , 28 n. 7, , 757 n. 7 (1990).
State v. Paredes 887 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Paredes 887 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
overruled on other grounds
State v. Detrich 873 P.2d 1302 Ariz. 1994
State v. Detrich 873 P.2d 1302 Ariz. 1994
To determine whether there is sufficient evidence to require the giving of a lesser included offense instruction, the test is “whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.” , overruled on other grounds
State v. Berryman 875 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Berryman 875 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
8 n. 4, , 917 n. 4 (1988)
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
overruled on other grounds, , 28 n. 7, , 757 n. 7 (1990).
State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Anaya 825 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Anaya 825 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
overruled on other grounds
State v. Williams 813 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Williams 813 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Although the supreme court has recently ruled that a grand jury has authority to consider the issue of the punishment to be imposed, , it did not rule that a prosecutor no longer has authority to seek an addendum to the indictment for sentencing enhancement allegations.