Cited by

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

67 citing documents.

State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) (delineating limits to the “automatic reversal rule” that accompanies certain types of error); ¶ 29 , (“Virtually any error, under particular circumstances, can be harmless.”) ( ¶ 21 , ).
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
Compare § 13-703 (containing no language requiring findings of fact on circumstances judge considers in imposing prison term of natural life or life with the possibility of parole) with § 13-702(B) (requiring factual findings on aggravating or mitigating factors); , (sentencing court’s failure to substantially comply with requirement of fact-findings in § 13-702(B) was structural error not subject to harmless error analysis).
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
¶ 29 , ( ¶ 21 , (McGregor, J., dissenting)).
State v. Long 83 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Long 83 P.3d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
§ 13-702(B) (2001 & Supp.2003); -35, ¶ 32 , -20 (App.1998), aff'd, , -77, ¶ 18 , -56 (App. 1998).
State v. Cazares 72 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Ernesto Luis Cazares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Ernesto Luis Cazares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
§ 13-4033(A)(3), includes the right to appeal a “sentence on the grounds that it is illegal or excessive.” Petitioner’s P.2d 513 (App. 1998), aff’d, P.2d 486 (1999), in which the trial court’s failure to comply with the procedures outlined in the sentencing statutes in imposing an aggravated sentence resulted in a remand for resentencing.
State v. Cazares 72 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
§ 13-4033(A)(3), includes the right to appeal a “sentence on the grounds that it is illegal or excessive.” Petitioner’s , aff'd, , in which the trial court’s failure to comply with the procedures outlined in the sentencing statutes in imposing an aggravated ■ sentence resulted in a remand for resentencing.
State v. Hickman 68 P.3d 418 Ariz. 2003
State v. Hickman 68 P.3d 418 Ariz. 2003
¶ 29 “[V]irtually any error, under particular circumstances, can be harmless.” ¶ 21 , (McGregor, J., dissenting).
State v. Estrada 18 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Estrada 18 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
¶ 3 In his Rule 32 petition, petitioner challenged the aggravated sentence, arguing (1) that the trial court erred in relying on aggravating factors that were not alleged by the prosecutor in his sentencing memorandum; (2) that the trial court failed to consider and properly weigh mitigating evidence presented by the defense, , (3) that the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding that the crime was committed in an “especially heinous and depraved” manner; and (4) that the trial court fai
State v. Samano 11 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Samano 11 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
-4, ¶¶ 10-11, 5, ¶ 16 , 490 (App.1999) (requiring articulation of aggravating factors); ¶ 12 , (regarding enhancement for historical prior felony convictions).