Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Harrison, 985 P.2d 486.

67 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Manuel David Perez-Gutierrez 548 P.3d 1102 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Manuel David Perez-Gutierrez 548 P.3d 1102 Ariz. 2024
§ 13-711(A)—which requires courts to explain certain sentencing decisions on the record—is amenable to: (1) fundamental-error review, (2) structural-error review, or (3)
State v. Alvarez Bojorquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Alvarez Bojorquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶19 In support of his assertion that the court erred in “fail[ing] to enumerate the aggravating and mitigating factors on the record,”
State v. Clay 535 P.3d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Clay 535 P.3d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
We will not, however, construe § 13-804(E) in a narrow or hypertechnical manner, ¶ 16 (App. 1998) (“Courts will apply constructions that make practical sense rather than hypertechnical constructions that frustrate legislative intent.”), nor in a manner that “raise[s] form over substance,” ¶ 12 (1999).
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Zavala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Zavala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
The superior court was “best position[ed] to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice.” ¶ 21 (App. 1998), aff’d
State v. Tingue Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Tingue Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
§ 13-701(C) requires the superior court to set forth factual findings supporting aggravating circumstances “on the record at the time of sentencing,” the court is not required to “recite a ‘specific litany’ or make ‘formal findings or conclusions.’” Bonfiglio, 231 Ariz. at 374, ¶ 12 (-4, ¶¶ 6, 12 (1999)).
State v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
We view “the evidence in the light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial 10 STATE v. HAMILTON Decision of the Court effect.” opinion approved of, (internal citations omitted).
State v. Barrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Barrett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 12 (1999) (stating that the trial court need not recite a "specific litany" or make "formal findings or conclusions" at sentencing).
State of Arizona v. David Lee Green 459 P.3d 45 Ariz. 2020
State v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Go daddy/berkley v. Sebion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Go daddy/berkley v. Sebion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Comm'n, 195 Ariz. 1 Absent material revision after the relevant date, we cite the current version of a statute or rule.
State v. Graystone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Graystone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“The trial court is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice.” ¶ 21 (App. 1998), aff’d
In Re R.E. 387 P.3d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
In Re R.E. 387 P.3d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Opinion of the Court 410, ¶ 21, (in criminal case, remand for resentencing proper when trial court “erred in believing that consecutive sentences were statutorily mandated”); ¶¶ 1, 6, 17, 488, 490 (1999) (remand for resentencing proper for trial court’s failure to substantially comply with statutory requirement that aggravated or mitigated sentence be supported by “factual findings and reasons in support of such findings .
State v. Armstrong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Armstrong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 13-701(C); ¶ 12 (1999).
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 21, (“The trial court is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice.”), aff’d, P.2d 486 (1999).
State v. Talibuddin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Talibuddin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 21, (“The trial court is in the best position to balance the probative value of challenged evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice.”), aff’d, P.2d 486 (1999).
State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Thus, it has broad discretion in deciding the admissibility.”), aff'd, P.2d 486 (1999).
State v. Doty 307 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Doty 307 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State of Arizona v. Austin James Bonfiglio 295 P.3d 948 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Austin James Bonfiglio 295 P.3d 948 Ariz. 2013
- 6 - ¶12 P.2d 486 (1999), does not compel a different result.
In Re Martin M. and Rene N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
In Re Martin M. and Rene N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See Hickman, 205 Ariz. at 198, ¶ 29 , 68 P.3d at 424 (“Virtually any error, under particular circumstances, can be harmless.” ( ¶ 21 , )).
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
onstitutional obligation to cite the factors on which a natural life sentence is based, our supreme court has stated: “While an abuse of discretion [in sentencing] will, as a practical matter, rarely be found, the trial court’s explanation of its reasoning serves to facilitate such review, and is thus never a useless exercise.” Fell, n.7, 115 P.3d at 600 n.7; (to comply with requirements of § 13-702(B), trial court must “articulat[e] at sentencing the factors the judge considered to be aggravati
State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Galvez 150 P.3d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Galvez 150 P.3d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State of Arizona v. Pablo Rodriguez Celaya 141 P.3d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Pablo Rodriguez Celaya 141 P.3d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
§ 13-702(B); ¶¶ 9-10, -89 (1999).
State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004