Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Fushek v. State, 183 P.3d 536.

28 citing documents.

Samuel Fuentes v. Tucson City Court Hon. Jay Cranshaw 541 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Samuel Fuentes v. Tucson City Court Hon. Jay Cranshaw 541 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Elifonso Anthony Cruz 504 P.3d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State of Arizona v. Elifonso Anthony Cruz 504 P.3d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
(Section 13-118’s requirement that state prove sexual motivation beyond reasonable doubt “akin to an element of an aggravated offense”); (when “defendant stipulates, confesses or admits to facts sufficient to establish an aggravating circumstance, we will regard t
State of Arizona v. Oscar Pena Trujillo 462 P.3d 550 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Oscar Pena Trujillo 462 P.3d 550 Ariz. 2020
¶ 23 (2008); –03 ¶¶ 8–13 (App. 2001); infra ¶ 59 (listing exceptions to lifetime requirement).
State v. Trujillo 430 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Trujillo 430 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
It compared State v. Noble , , upon which the state relied, with Fushek v. State , , upon which Trujillo relied.
Spence v. Bacal 413 P.3d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Spence v. Bacal 413 P.3d 1254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Fushek v. State , , ¶ 10, , 539-40 (2008) ; see A.R.S.
State v. Cortes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cortes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano 323 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano 323 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
n.5, n.5 (App. 2010) (noting due process right to notice of registration requirement); n.7, n.7 (2008) (observing “sex offender status has significant and far-reaching consequences”); ¶¶ 17, 30, 543-44 (2008) (finding sex offender registration sufficiently severe consequence to trigger certain constitutional procedural rights).
In re Javier B. 280 P.3d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In re Javier B. 280 P.3d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In the context of adult sex offender registration, our supreme court has observed that "sex offender status has significant and far-reaching consequences.” , 144 n. 7, ¶ 23, , 1050 n. 7 (2008); -93, ¶ 30 , -44 (2008) (holding that sex offender registration is a sufficiently severe consequence so as to require a jury trial in misdemeanor cases involving sexual motivation).
State of Arizona v. Jaren Scott Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Jaren Scott Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
¶¶ 17, 30, 543-44 (2008) (holding sex offender registration sufficiently serious consequence to trigger right to jury trial in misdemeanor case).
State v. Henry 228 P.3d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Henry 228 P.3d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Laws, ch. 105, § 1; n. 2 , , 538 n. 2 (2008).
SULAVKA v. State 221 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
SULAVKA v. State 221 P.3d 1022 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
¶ 22 , (stating that the requirement that a defendant register as a sex offender if convicted for misdemeanors involving sexual motivation strongly suggested that the legislature viewed such crimes as similar to more serious offenses) (citations omitted).
State v. Stummer 194 P.3d 1043 Ariz. 2008
State v. Stummer 194 P.3d 1043 Ariz. 2008
-92, ¶¶ 24-26, -43 (2008).
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, No. CV-07-0251-PR, -92 , -43 , 2008 WL 384376 at *4-5, ¶¶ 22-26 (Ariz. Feb.14, 2008) The loss of liberty suffered by a defendant who must take domestic violence classes does not approximate incarceration, and is less than the loss of a liquor license, driver’s license, or one thousand dollars.