Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Arellano, 143 P.3d 1015.

32 citing documents.

Simmons v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 6 (App. 2020) ( ¶ 4 (2006)).
State v. Hon hannah/harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hon hannah/harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“This grant to the Court of Appeals of broad jurisdiction over special actions necessarily includes special actions arising out of capital cases.” ¶ 4 (2006).
State v. Brandeberry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brandeberry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
An abuse of discretion occurs when “the reasons given by the court for its action are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” ¶ 14 (2006) (citation omitted).
State v. Ping Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Ping Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 23 n.5 (2006) (“A trial judge usually will not exclude evidence as unduly prejudicial when the trial is to the court.”).
Leila S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Leila S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 23, n. 5 ("A trial judge usually will not exclude evidence as unduly prejudicial when the trial is to the court.").
State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II 363 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II 363 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
“‘When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language and need not engage in any other means of statutory interpretation.’”
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
“‘When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language and need not engage in any other means of statutory interpretation.’”
State v. Harrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Harrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“An abuse of discretion occurs when the reasons given by the court for its actions are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.” ¶ 14
Milke v. Mroz 339 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Milke v. Mroz 339 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(rebuttable presumption of intellectual disability4 “vanishes” when state presents evidence intelligence quotient scores invalid or other evidence capital defendant not suffering from intellectual disability).
State of Arizona v. Agustin Gonzalez Gongora 330 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Agustin Gonzalez Gongora 330 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language and need not engage in any other means of statutory interpretation.’”
Roosevelt Arthur Williams v. State of Arizona 303 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Roosevelt Arthur Williams v. State of Arizona 303 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
before the age of [eighteen].” Moormann v. Schriro, 672 F.3d 644, 648-49 (9th Cir.2012) (Arizona Supreme Court’s denial of stay of execution, where defendant’s offer of proof pertained to declining IQ as adult post-conviction, not contrary to or unreasonable application of clearly established federal law); , (“The provision [in § 13-753] requiring that symptoms of mental retardation occur before age eighteen applies to both elements of mental retardation: significantly subaverage intelligence an
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston 298 P.3d 887 Ariz. 2013
Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state 295 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2013
Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state 295 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Orleans P. Estrella Juan Carlos Holguin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Orleans P. Estrella Juan Carlos Holguin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
See State v. Arellano, 213 n.3, n.3 (2006) (weight of evidence separate consideration from admissibility).
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Duncan 216 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Duncan 216 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
1(a); ¶ 4 , (court of appeals can exercise special action jurisdiction to review issues concerning mental retardation proceedings in capital litigation).
Scott Douglas Nordstrom v. State of Arizona 142 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006