Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Kelly, 950 P.2d 1153.

30 citing documents.

State v. Blackwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Ordway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ordway Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Factors to consider when determining whether multiple offenses were committed on the same occasion include: “1) time, 2) place, 3) number of victims, 4) whether the crimes were continuous and uninterrupted, and 5) whether they were directed to the accomplishment of a single criminal objective.” ¶ 6 (1997).
State v. Porter 560 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Porter 560 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶8 To determine whether the offenses underlying a prior conviction were committed on the same occasion, the trier of fact must analyze the following factors: “1) time, 2) place, 3) number of victims, 4) whether the crimes were continuous and uninterrupted, and 5) whether they were directed to the accomplishment of a single criminal objective.” ¶ 6 (1997).
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Although he did not object at sentencing, “[t]he improper use of a conviction as a historical prior felony conviction for enhancement purposes constitutes fundamental error.” ¶ 8 (App. 2007); ¶ 5 (1997) (claim that sentence should have been enhanced based on one, not two, prior convictions, can be raised for first time on appeal); ¶¶ 20–21 (2005) (remanding for resentencing where the court misapplied the law even though the defendant affirmatively contributed to t
State v. Agyepong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Agyepong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Shoemaker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Shoemaker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 6 (1997) (a court must analyze “1) time, 2) place, 3) number of victims, 4) whether the crimes were continuous and uninterrupted, and 5) whether they were directed to the accomplishment of a single criminal objective.”).
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See id.; ¶ 12 (1997) (explaining that if the defendant “sold marijuana and methamphetamine to a single officer in a single transaction” and “the offenses were uninterrupted and committed at the same time and place with a single 3 STATE v. VALENZUELA
State v. Gulley 382 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gulley 382 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 13-703(L) (“Convictions for two or more offenses committed on the same occasion shall be counted as only one conviction for the purposes of [sentence enhancement].”); *586 ¶ 13 , (remanding to the trial court to determine whether two prior convictions were committed on the “same occasion” within the meaning of the predecessor statute to § 13-703(L)).
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
STATE v. ORTIZ Opinion of the Court ¶64 To determine whether offenses were committed on the same occasion, the trier of fact must look at five factors: “1) time, 2) place, 3) number of victims, 4) whether the crimes were continuous and uninterrupted, and 5) whether they were directed to the accomplishment of a single criminal objective.” see also Flores, n.2, 335 P.3d at 557, n.2 (noting Kelly factors are exclusive).
State of Arizona v. Dominic Rodolpho Flores 335 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Dominic Rodolpho Flores 335 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
our supreme court identified five factors to be considered when determining whether offenses were committed on the same occasion: “1) time, 2) place, 3) number of victims, 4) whether the crimes were continuous and uninterrupted, and 5) whether they were directed to the accomplishment
State v. Stock 207 P.3d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Stock 207 P.3d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
§ 13-604(M) (2003), , ¶ 6 , (two prior offenses were treated as one transaction committed on same occasion for purposes of sentence enhancement under § 13-604(M)).
State v. Smith 194 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2008
State v. Smith 194 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2008
For example, in State v. Kelly, we agreed with a court of appeals’ decision holding that improper use of two prior convictions committed on the same occasion6 constituted “fundamental error which can be raised for the first time on appeal.” ¶ 5, ( ).
State v. Thomas 175 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State of Arizona v. Mikal Omar Rasul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Mikal Omar Rasul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
raise this issue below, and thus forfeited his right to appellate relief absent fundamental error, “[t]he improper use of two prior convictions rather than one for purposes of sentence enhancement constitutes fundamental error.”
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
Carreon contends that the trial court’s lack of instruction caused the jury to erroneously treat one criminal transaction that resulted in two convictions as two separate offenses.
State v. Derello 18 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Derello 18 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
534 ¶5, , 1155 ¶5 (1997).