Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Garza, 962 P.2d 898.

31 citing documents.

State v. Kerr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Kerr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State of Arizona v. Kevin Harry Moninger 552 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Kevin Harry Moninger 552 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2024
¶ 17 (1998) (remanding a case for resentencing when the record is unclear whether a sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence absent improper factors).
State v. Valvano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Valvano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶¶ 17–18 (1998) (remanding for sentencing where the sentence was within the appropriate range, but the trial court mistakenly believed it had no discretion).
Anthony Garcia v. Hon. butler/state 487 P.3d 256 Ariz. 2021
Anthony Garcia v. Hon. butler/state 487 P.3d 256 Ariz. 2021
¶11 We review the interpretation of statutes de novo, ¶ 6 (2019), and the trial court’s refusal or failure to exercise discretion for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 16 (1998).
State v. Emedi 484 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Emedi 484 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 17 (1998) (“Even when the sentence imposed is within the trial judge’s authority, if the record is unclear whether the judge knew he had discretion to act otherwise, the case 2 We note one further issue concerning Count 4 that merits discussion.
State v. Cameron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cameron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 17 (1998) (“Even when the sentence imposed is within the trial judge’s authority, if the record is unclear whether the judge knew he had discretion to act otherwise, the case should be remanded for resentencing.”); ¶ 13 (App. 2002).
State v. Millis 391 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Millis 391 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
(failure to exercise discretion *43 may constitute abuse of discretion).
State v. Souch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Souch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In fact, -75, ¶ 12, -02 (1998), which had addressed the same issue of the non-existence of a presumption for consecutive sentences under A.R.S.
In Re Dillon D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In Re Dillon D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Although the term “abuse of discretion” has been aptly described as “unfortunate,” the phrase “as a whole has been interpreted to apply where the reasons given by the court for its action are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” n.7, n.7 (1998).
State v. Jarrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jarrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 17, (“Even when the sentence imposed is within the trial judge's authority, if the record is unclear whether the judge knew he had discretion to act otherwise, the case should be remanded for resentencing.”).
State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
6 “A court’s refusal or failure to exercise its discretion may be treated as an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 16
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Urquidez 138 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Urquidez 138 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
[the] sentences imposed by the court shall run consecutively unless the court expressly directs otherwise, in which case the court shall set forth on the record the reason for its sentence.”); , -02 (1998) (consecutive sentences are “default designation” if trial court does not set forth its reasons when imposing multiple sentences).
State v. Ward 26 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Ward 26 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1999

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by