Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tarango, 914 P.2d 1300.

93 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Jose Soto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
State of Arizona v. Jose Soto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
(rule of lenity applicable when criminal sentencing statute susceptible to more than one interpretation); Serrato, (rule of lenity pertinent if ambiguity persists after all interpretative tools applied); Reinesto v. Superior Cour
Hershfeldt v. Adoc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Hershfeldt v. Adoc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In 2003, and he was entitled to ERC.
State v. Reyes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Reyes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vindiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vindiola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶3 P.2d 1300 (1996) is a significant change in the law that renders his “flat time” term of imprisonment illegal and makes him eligible for early release.
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
-11, -03 (1996) (courts must follow plain, unambiguous text and may not “rewrite statutes”); (“[T]his court is not at liberty to rewrite the statute under the guise of judicial interpretation.”).
State v. Bolding 253 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Bolding 253 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
¶¶ 13-16; ¶¶ 6-7, 9 , -89 (1999) ( , ).
State v. Montes 245 P.3d 879 Ariz. 2011
State v. Montes 245 P.3d 879 Ariz. 2011
In that case, the Legislature had enacted a measure retroactively requiring flat- time sentences, that certain prisoners could not be given such sentences.
State v. Rios 237 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Rios 237 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
As explained in Montes, Murray dealt with a retroactive amendment to sentencing statutes to allow a court to apply flat time sentences in a , that such flat time sentences could not be applied.
State v. Diaz 230 P.3d 705 Ariz. 2010
State v. Diaz 230 P.3d 705 Ariz. 2010
See, (citing cases); State v. Deddens, 112 Ariz. 425, 429
State v. Munoz 228 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Munoz 228 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
When a statute is “susceptible to more than one interpretation, the rule of lenity dictates that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the defendant.” , (citation omitted).
State v. Montes 223 P.3d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Montes 223 P.3d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
After we issued our decision, however, , which affirmed the appellate court’s decision that similarly situated “prisoners ...
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Distinguished State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
There, our supreme court held that the legislature could not “retrospectively overrule” P.2d 1300 (1996).
Hounshell v. White 199 P.3d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Hounshell v. White 199 P.3d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Brown 177 P.3d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Brown 177 P.3d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Francisco Lazaro Gonzalez, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Francisco Lazaro Gonzalez, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
at 240, 669 P.2d at 1017; 211, 1303 (1996) (courts must follow text of plain, unambiguous statute as written and “are not permitted to rewrite statutes”); (“[T]his court is not at liberty to rewrite the statute under the guise of judic
State v. Ross 151 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Ross 151 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
And, if a statute remains unclear after considering those factors, “‘the rule of lenity dictates that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the defendant.’” -50, 6 -49 (App. 1983), aff’d, P.2d 743 (1984).
State of Arizona v. Stanley Thomas Tyszkiewicz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Stanley Thomas Tyszkiewicz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(objection to evidence on one ground not sufficient to preserve objection to evidence on another ground), aff’d, P.2d 1300 (1996).
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
§§ 13-604 and 13-604.02 in order to “overrule” the supreme court’s
State of Arizona v. Rene A. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Rene A. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
If that endeavor nevertheless leaves a statute “‘susceptible to more than one interpretation, the rule of lenity dictates that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the defendant.’” -50, -49 (App. 1983), aff’d, P.2d 743 (1984).
State v. Arbolida 78 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Arbolida 78 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
O'BRIEN v. Escher 65 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
O'BRIEN v. Escher 65 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Thus, construing the two statutes in harmony, as we must attempt to do, P.2d 1300 (1996), we conclude that § 28-1594 permits an 3 Enacted by 1990 Ariz. Sess.
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
(“[f]or first-time offenders, former §§ 13-701 and 13-702 provide the range of sentences”); , (“[t]he presumptive sentence, the range of punishment, and the other circumstances of punishment for non-dangerous offenders are det
Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
12 ¶22 P.2d 635 (1996), P.2d 1300 (1996).