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. Mann, 934 P.2d 784.

42 citing documents.

  • In Re R.E. 387 P.3d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • In Re R.E. 387 P.3d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
    n.1, n.1 (1997) (Martone, J., concurring) (appellate court has discretion to address fundamental error it observes in course of appellate review).
  • State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano 323 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano 323 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    In State v. Mann, our supreme court stated that “courts have the inherent authority to clarify or modify their own judgments and orders.”
  • State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    In addition, ”[a]n appellate court may find fundamental error even if the issue is not raised on appeal by a defendant.” Henderson, n. 6 , 115 P.3d at 611 n. 6 (Hurwitz, J., concurring); , 232 n. 1, , 796 n. 1 (1997) (Martone, J., concurring); , (court “will not ignore” fundamental sentencing error if found).
  • State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    In addition, “[a]n appellate court may find fundamental error even if the issue is not raised on appeal by a defendant.” Henderson, n.6, 115 P.3d at 611 n.6 (Hurwitz, J., concurring); n.1, n.1 (1997) (Martone, J., concurring); (court “will not ignore” fundamental sentencing error if found).
  • State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
  • State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
    (“Arizona has made [the choice to allow victim impact statements] and thus, under the Arizona Constitution, and to the extent allowed by Payne and our cases, victim impact evidence should be considered by the court to rebut the defendant's mitigation
  • State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    § 13-4035 does not require appellate courts “to ignore obvious fundamental error in a criminal proceeding”); , 232 n. 1, , 796 n. 1 (1997) (Martone, J., concurring) (“[I]f in the process of examining issues presented by way of appeal we stumble across fundamental error, then we have the discretion to address it.”).
  • State v. Stroud 88 P.3d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State v. Stroud 88 P.3d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    (Martone, J., concurring) (reviewing court has discretion to address fundamental error that is manifest from court’s examination of appeal issues).
  • Lynn v. Reinstein 68 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2003
  • Lynn v. Reinstein 68 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Towery 64 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Roger Wayne Murray Ariz. 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Roger Wayne Murray Ariz. 2003
    P.2d 1287 (1999); P.2d 784 (1997); P.2d 290 (1996); P.2d 1214 (1996).
  • State v. Towery 64 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Marcos Antonio Herrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State of Arizona v. Marcos Antonio Herrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    See State v. Mann, 188 Ariz. 220, 231
  • State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
    1199 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1102 (2000); , , State v. Rossi
  • State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    -16 , -56 (1995); , (admission of improper evidence in bench trial does not require reversal because, unless it appears otherwise, appellate court will assume trial
  • State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
  • Followed State v. Hoskins 14 P.3d 997 Ariz. 2000
    (“An abusive family background is usually given significant weight as a mitigating factor only when the abuse affected the defendant’s behavior at the time of the crime.”); Jones, 185 Ariz. at 490 , 917 P.2d at 219 ; Stokley, 182 Ariz. at 524 , 898 P.2d at 473 ; Wallace (II), 160 Ariz.
  • State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
    See Henry, 189 Ariz. at 551 , 944 P.2d at 66
  • State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Clabourne 983 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1999
    See State v. Mann, 188 * -67 , -600 (1995).
  • State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
    State v. (Michael) Apelt
  • State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997