Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lara, 830 P.2d 803.

59 citing documents.

State v. Brice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Brice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
It merely defines a single harsh punishment for a single severe crime.” (“reaffirming the rule of Bly”).
State v. Godoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Godoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Our supreme court “reaffirm[ed] the rule of Bly”
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
¶ 130, (“In [State v.] Lara [ P.2d 802 (1992)], we held that an element of a crime may also be used to aggravate a sentence.
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
Cruz, 218 Ariz. at 169 ¶ 130, 181 P.3d at 216 (–85, –06 (1992)).
State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Guillermo E. Cooney 312 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Young v. Beck 251 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2011
Young v. Beck 251 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2011
Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Office v. Downie 189 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2008
Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Office v. Downie 189 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2008
(restating the holding of a previous case despite the fact that if the Court had been “writing on a clean slate” it might have taken another approach); (doubting the wisdom of prior deci
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
a. State v. Lara ¶130 Cruz fails to articulate how applying the (F)(10) aggravating factor violates the constitution, aside from urging us to overrule State v. Lara, 171 Ariz. 282
State v. Miranda-Cabrera 99 P.3d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Miranda-Cabrera 99 P.3d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Sentence enhancement raises the permissible range of punishment, while aggravation elevates a sentence within the previously defined range.” , 206 n. 2, 823 P.2d *223 70, 73 n. 2 (App.1990), vacated on other grounds by
State v. Hickman 68 P.3d 418 Ariz. 2003
State v. Hickman 68 P.3d 418 Ariz. 2003
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
sentence under § 13-604 and aggravate it under § 13-702(C)(2)); P.2d 592 (App. 1983) (sentence enhanced and aggravated for prior felony convictions, § 13-702(C)(11)); P.2d 1257 (App. 1982) (victim’s death both element of offense of second-degree murder and basis for aggravating sentence, § 13-702(C)(1)); n.1, n.1 (1992) (“‘serious physical injury’” necessarily, though not literally, includes death).
State v. Montoya 65 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Montoya 65 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Thus, there is a , in which the supreme court affirmed the aggravation of a defendant’s sentence for manslaughter using one element of that crime — the victim’s death.
State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Id.; -07 , -64 (1994); , (“Orduno’s application is limited to DUIs.”).
State v. Tschilar 27 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Tschilar 27 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
State v. Greene 967 P.2d 106 Ariz. 1998
1192 , 140 L.Ed.2d 321 (1998) ( , ).
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1997
(vacating, because of “healthy respect for stare decisis,” court of appeals’ holding that essential and irreducible element of crime cannot serve to aggravate crime it defines).
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
546 , 98 L.Ed.2d 568 (1988)
State v. Pitts 874 P.2d 962 Ariz. 1994
State v. Pitts 874 P.2d 962 Ariz. 1994
Orduno, 159 Ariz. at 567 , 769 P.2d at 1013 ; see also
State v. Magana 874 P.2d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Pitts 870 P.2d 1155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Pitts 870 P.2d 1155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Following the court’s limited application of Orduno to DUI cases, this court consistently applied Bly to resolve cases challenging the use of a single element to both enhance and aggravate a , vacated
State v. Fogarty 871 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Russell 858 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Fogarty 871 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Russell 858 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering that “the crime involved alleged property of another that was taken.” Our supreme court, , has held that it is permissible for the trial court to use an essential element of a crime as an aggravating circumstance.
In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water In the Gila River System & Source 857 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1993
In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water In the Gila River System & Source 857 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1993
State v. Andersen 868 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Andersen 868 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
However, , the defendant properly withdrew this argument.
State v. Garcia 860 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993