Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ring, 65 P.3d 915.

306 citing documents.

State v. Estrada 108 P.3d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Estrada 108 P.3d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 18 As did the panel in Martinez , -62, ¶ 88 , -43 (2003) (Ring III), requires that all aggravating factors in noncapital eases be found by a jury.
State v. Pitre 107 P.3d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Pitre 107 P.3d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Indeed, -62, ¶¶ 87-90 , -43 (2003) (“Ring III”), our supreme court rejected the argument that if one aggravating factor is established beyond a reasonable doubt the trial court’s consideration of other aggravating factors is harmless and does not require resentencing.
State v. Chiappetta 107 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Chiappetta 107 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
¶¶ 60, 62 , ( Ring III ) ("the Court in Apprendi chose not to overrule Almendarez-Torres [ v. U.S., 523 U.S. 224 , 118 S.Ct.
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
547 ¶ 24, (Ring III), we reasoned that “Arizona’s change in the statutory method for imposing capital punishment is clearly procedural” and thus this change “does not affect the substantive matters of the defendant’s prosecutions.” Based on that determination, we then held that “applying the
State v. Alire 105 P.3d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Alire 105 P.3d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
In so doing, , (Ring III).
State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State of Arizona v. Derek Scott Oaks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Derek Scott Oaks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
¶23 Under our supreme court’s Apprendi error may be harmless.
State v. Timmons 103 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Criticized State v. Timmons 103 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
¶ 7 Nevertheless, we decline to follow Division One’s lead because, , (Ring III), our supreme court essentially rejected its analysis in the capital sentencing context, finding-one Sixth Amendment-compliant factor insufficient, in and of itself, to permit a trial court to find additional aggravating factors, notwithstanding that an Arizona capital defendant technica
State v. Resendis-Felix 100 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Resendis-Felix 100 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(“Ring III”); , (finding Apprendi error harmless in capital sentencing following guilty plea to first-degree murder); , 324 n. 3, , 735 n. 3 (2003) (“any Apprendi error would be harmless”); State
State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
A. ¶ 11 , (“Ring III”), “structural errors ‘deprive defendants of “basic protections” without which a “criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence ...
State v. Martinez 100 P.3d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Martinez 100 P.3d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 19 -62, ¶ 88 , -43 (2003) (Ring III), our supreme court held that, under Arizona’s sentencing scheme for capital sentencing, all aggravating factors used to impose a death sentence must be found by the jury.
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
That conclusion is supported by our supreme court’s , (Ring III).
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
State v. Murdaugh 97 P.3d 844 Ariz. 2004
D. ¶ 49 555, ¶¶ 44, 53 , 936 (2003) (“Ring III ”), this court concluded that it would examine capital sentences imposed under Arizona’s superseded sentencing scheme for harmless error.
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Montano 77 P.3d 1246 Ariz. 2003
State v. Montano 77 P.3d 1246 Ariz. 2003
___ ¶ 53, (Ring III), we held that we will examine a death sentence imposed under Arizona’s superseded capital sentencing statutes for harmless error.
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Rayes 75 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Rayes 75 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
-46, ¶ 16 , -27 (2003); , 173 n. 4, , 1219 n. 4 (1992) (“[T]he analysis under both constitutions is the same[.]”).
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
State v. Dann 74 P.3d 231 Ariz. 2003
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
Following the Ring II decision, we consolidated all death penalty cases in which this court had not yet issued a direct appeal mandate, including Lamar's, , ( Ring III ).
State v. Canez 74 P.3d 932 Ariz. 2003
State v. Cañez 74 P.3d 932 Ariz. 2003
State v. Cañez 74 P.3d 932 Ariz. 2003
State v. Canez 74 P.3d 932 Ariz. 2003
State v. Ring, ___ Ariz. ___, ___, ¶¶ 5-6, (Ring III).
Lynn v. Reinstein 68 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2003
Lynn v. Reinstein 68 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2003
2; accord State v. Ring, Ariz. , ¶ 61, (“We cannot ignore a Supreme Court decision interpreting federal law unless the Court expressly overrules or casts cognizable doubt on that decision.”).
State v. Phillips 67 P.3d 1228 Ariz. 2003
State v. Phillips 67 P.3d 1228 Ariz. 2003
State v. Cropper 68 P.3d 407 Ariz. 2003
State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003