DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Harrod, 26 P.3d 492.

86 citing documents.

  • State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
    This argument was rejected by the United States Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 187 (1976), ¶ 59, vacated on other grounds by Harrod v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 953 (2002).
  • State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. McCray 183 P.3d 503 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
    A more detailed account of the facts appears in State v. Harrod (Harrod I), -12, ¶¶ 2-11, -95 (2001).
  • State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
  • State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
    ¶ 53, vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 (2002).
  • State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
  • State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
    ¶ 53, vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 (2002).
  • State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
  • State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
    Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 186-87 (1976); ¶ 59, vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 (2002) (mem.).
  • State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
  • State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
    E.g., State v. Harrod, 200 Ariz. 309, 319 ¶ 53, (stating that trial court need not give this circumstance much weight because all prisoners are expected to behave), rev’d on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 (2002); State v. White, 194 Ariz. 344, 355 ¶ 47
  • State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
  • State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
    The Supreme Court rejected this argument in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 186-87 (1976); ¶ 59, vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 (2002), and Blazak, 131 Ariz. at 601, 643 P.2d at 698.
  • State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. Johnson 133 P.3d 735 Ariz. 2006
    ¶ 65, and Carreon, 210 Ariz. at 75 ¶ 115, 107 P.3d at 921.
  • State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
  • State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
  • State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
  • State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
    Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 186-87 (1976); State v. Harrod, 200 Ariz. 309, 320, ¶¶ 58-59, (holding that “[t]he Arizona death penalty is not per se cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments”) (citations omitted), vacated on other grounds by Harrod v. State, 536 U.
  • State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
  • State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
  • State v. Davis 68 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Davis 68 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    ¶ 25 , in concluding that defendant could not question M.L.
  • State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
    at 2362 (“[I]t is arguable that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided, and that a logical application of our reasoning today should apply if the recidivist issue were contested.”)); , 318 ¶ 44, (rejecting defendant’s argument that Apprendi implicitly overruled Walton), vacated on other grounds by Harrod v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct.
  • State v. Smith 50 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Smith 50 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
    For a fuller treatment of the issue, -80 , , 1150-52 ¶¶ 40-44 (2001), , , 503 ¶¶ 40-44 (2001).
  • State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
    For a fuller treatment of the issue, -80, -52 ¶¶40-44 (2001), ¶¶40-44 (2001).
  • State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Pandeli 26 P.3d 1136 Ariz. 2001