Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. DePiano, 926 P.2d 494.

27 citing documents.

State v. Schaeffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Schaeffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
the punishment imposed is greater than under the circumstances of the case ought to be inflicted.” (explaining A.R.S.
State v. Keddy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Keddy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
has been 2 STATE v. KEDDY Decision of the Court ¶6 The applicable pre-sentence report reflects that after he was released from prison, Keddy was incarcerated on the remaining count for 81 days prior to
State v. Martinson 384 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
vacated in part, P.2d 494 (1996).
State v. Berger 134 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2006
State v. Berger 134 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2006
He notes that, when he was sentenced, our court’s Eighth Amendment ease law did not allow a judge to consider the individual facts and circumstances of the crime committed, -30 , -97 , and Davis overruled that holding, 206 Ariz. at 384, ¶ 34 , 79 P.3d at 71 .
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office v. Maricopa County Employee Merit System Commission 119 P.3d 1022 Ariz. 2005
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office v. Maricopa County Employee Merit System Commission 119 P.3d 1022 Ariz. 2005
(noting that this Court’s exercise of its statutory power to modify sentences 10 Pers.
State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 4 The trial court denied the motion, , cert.
State v. Long 83 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Long 83 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
a case subsequent to the Bartlett jurisprudence that disapproved of the Bartlett II court’s conclusion requiring an individualized analysis, provides the proper test.
State v. Davis 79 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2003
State v. Davis 79 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2003
a three-member majority held that disproportionality must be measured by the nature of the crime and not by the facts and circumstances of any particular defendant’s ease.
State v. Brown 70 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Brown 70 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
See, , (presumptive prison term determined by § 13-701); , (§ 13-701 sets forth presumptive sentences for felony offenses).
State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
State v. Samano 11 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Samano 11 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(citing Williams, 175 Ariz. at 102 , 854 P.2d at 135 , for the proposition that “[t]he legislative history indicates quite clearly that the enactment of § 13-604.01 was calculated to reach criminals who prey specifically upon children.”); -32, 39 , -99, 506 (1996) (reducing consecutive seventeen-year sentences of depressed mother whose attempted suicide-infanticide did not evidence an “evil,” “wicked” intent to harm children, but rather evidenced crime directed against herself; noting that sente
Wigglesworth v. Mauldin 990 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Wigglesworth v. Mauldin 990 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
However, “what is cruel and unusual is not so clear.”
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
State v. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
State v. LeBlanc 924 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1996