Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Djerf, 959 P.2d 1274.

75 citing documents.

State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006
¶ 44, (noting that “a finding of either cruelty or heinousness/depravity will suffice to establish” the (F)(6) factor).
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
21 He further argues that because the “especially heinous, cruel or depraved” aggravator is stated in the disjunctive, and “a finding of either cruelty or heinousness/depravity will suffice to establish this factor,” , 595 ¶ 44, he was denied the right to a unanimous jury finding of this aggravator.
Kelley v. Abdo 105 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Kelley v. Abdo 105 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(‘We presume the trial court disregards all inadmissible evidence in reaching a decision.”); , (“In a court trial we will not find error in the admission of evidence since it is presumed the judge will disregard
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
State v. Dewakuku 92 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Dewakuku 92 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Accordingly, waiver ‘must be an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.’ ” State v. Djerf ¶ 35 , (quoting Boykin, 395 U.S. at 243 n. 5, 89 S.Ct.
Daniel Y. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 77 P.3d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Daniel Y. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 77 P.3d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Prior to finding that a client has waived his right to counsel, Arizona law requires that he be advised of “the dangers of self-representation, and the difficulties involved in defending oneself without formal legal training.” ¶ 23
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
Because the (F)(6) aggravator is phrased “in the disjunctive, a finding of either cruelty or heinousness/depravity will suffice to establish this factor.” ¶ 44
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Carlson 48 P.3d 1180 Ariz. 2002
State v. Djerf , 595 ¶ 45, , 1286 ¶ 45 (1998)
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
1286 ¶ 39 (1998) (citing Brewer, 170 Ariz. at 504 , 826 P.2d at 801 ).
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
State v. Sansing 26 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2001
We have interpreted Penry, Eddings, and Lockett as directing the sentencing judge to “consider evidence proffered for mitigation.” , 598 ¶ 61, , 1289 ¶ 61 (1998)(with respect to mitigating evidence, the sentencing judge is “entitled to give it the weight it deserves”); , (“The sentencer therefore must consider the defendant’s upbringing if proffered but is not req
State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
State v. Bocharski 22 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2001
1282 ¶ 21 (1998); Long v. Arizona Bd.
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999