Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Derendal v. Griffith, 104 P.3d 147.

95 citing documents.

State v. Soliz 219 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2009
SULAVKA v. State 221 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Soliz 219 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2009
¶ 37, (holding that sentence authorized by the legislature indicates the seriousness of the offense in question).
SULAVKA v. State 221 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 8 , (-88 , 226 P. 549, 550 (1924)).
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
BUCCELLATO v. Morgan 203 P.3d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
BUCCELLATO v. Morgan 203 P.3d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
at 536, ¶ 6 , ( ¶ 7 , ).
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 182 P.3d 1166 Ariz. 2008
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 182 P.3d 1166 Ariz. 2008
The legislature appeared to be responding to the holding of Rothweiler v. Superior Court (City of Tucson), , , that DUI defendants have a constitutional right to a jury trial.
State v. Willis 178 P.3d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Willis 178 P.3d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Fushek v. State 183 P.3d 536 Ariz. 2008
Fushek v. State 183 P.3d 536 Ariz. 2008
¶ 37, the superior court found that Fushek has a right to trial by jury because sex offender registration is an “additional, severe, direct, uniformly applied statutory consequence[] that reflect[s] the
STATE EX REL. BRANNAN v. Williams 171 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
STATE EX REL. BRANNAN v. Williams 171 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Le Noble 164 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Le Noble 164 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Crowell v. Jejna 161 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Crowell v. Jejna 161 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶¶ 36-37 , ( , ); ¶¶ 6-7
Fushek v. State 159 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Fushek v. State 159 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 6 In Derendal v. Griffith, the Arizona Supreme Court explained that Article 2, Section 23, “preserves the right to jury trial as it existed at the time Arizona adopted its constitution.” ¶ 9
Arizona Together v. Brewer 149 P.3d 742 Ariz. 2007
Arizona Together v. Brewer 149 P.3d 742 Ariz. 2007
Cf. *125 , 423-24 ¶¶ 28-32, -55 (2005) (abandoning continued reliance on the “moral quality test” because it was “subjective and ambiguous, [and] inconsistent outcomes resulted”).
Stoudamire v. State of Arizona 141 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Stoudamire v. State of Arizona 141 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶5 Article II, § 23 of the Arizona Constitution provides: “The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.” the Arizona Supreme Court held this provision preserves the right to a jury trial for 3 any offense that has a “common law antecedent that guaranteed a right to trial by jury at the time of Arizona statehood.” Consequently, a court mus
Abuhl v. Howell 135 P.3d 68 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Abuhl v. Howell 135 P.3d 68 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
The court held that Abuhl is not entitled to a
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission 132 P.3d 1187 Ariz. 2006
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission 132 P.3d 1187 Ariz. 2006
Hancock v. Bisnar 132 P.3d 283 Ariz. 2006
Hancock v. Bisnar 132 P.3d 283 Ariz. 2006
12 ¶22 The doctrine of stare decisis “‘is grounded on public policy that people should know what their rights are as set out by judicial precedent and having relied on such rights in conducting their affairs should not have them done away with by judicial fiat.’” ¶ 33, (quoting White v. Bateman, 89 Ariz. 110, 113, -14 (1961)); ¶ 16, (“The doctrine of stare decisis .
Pamela Manic v. Tucson City Attorney's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Pamela Manic v. Tucson City Attorney's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶3 Before the date scheduled for Manic’s trial, P.3d 147 (2005), P.2d 479 (1966), that misdemeanor DUI defendants have a constitutional right to a jury trial.
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Klausner 118 P.3d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Klausner 118 P.3d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
DISCUSSION ¶4 Petitioner asserts that the city court magistrates erroneously accepted the defendants’ , a case recently decided by the Arizona Supreme Court, reverses supreme court precedent that misdemeanor assault cases are not jury eligible.
State ex rel. Wangberg v. Smith 118 P.3d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State ex rel. Wangberg v. Smith 118 P.3d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 4 , defendants charged with misdemeanor offenses, including misdemeanor DUI offenses, are no longer jury trial eligible.
Ottaway v. Smith 113 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Andrew Mullin v. Brown Chapa Fields Linden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Andrew Mullin v. Brown Chapa Fields Linden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
See, ( P.2d 479 (1966), regarding “use of the ‘moral quality’ prong of [test] to determine whether one charged with a misdemeanor criminal offense is entitled to trial by jury”); Ontiveros v. Borak, 136 Ariz. 500, (19
Ottaway v. Smith 113 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
However, after the court ruled, the Arizona Supreme Court issued its opinion in Derendal v. Griffith (Phoenix City Prosecutor’s Office)
Newkirk v. Nothwehr 115 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Newkirk v. Nothwehr 115 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
resurrected the right to a jury trial on allegations of prior convictions.
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
16 made, shall be granted”); P.3d 147 (2005) (overruling Rothweiler and holding that drag racing is not a jury-eligible offense).