Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Foster v. Irwin, 995 P.2d 272.

28 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Ronald David Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Ronald David Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. David Lee Green 459 P.3d 45 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. David Lee Green 459 P.3d 45 Ariz. 2020
¶ 7 (2000) (noting that Proposition 200 differentiates non-commercial possession or use from commercial or potential commercial trafficking in controlled substances).
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
is to place a reasonable interpretation on ‘the intent of the electorate that adopted it.’” ¶ 15 (2001) ( ¶ 3 (2000)).
State v. Green 431 P.3d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Green 431 P.3d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
§§ 13-105(35) (defining "[p]ossession"), 13-3408(A) (listing as separate offenses "[p]ossess[ion] or use [of] a narcotic drug" and "[p]ossess[ion of] a narcotic drug for sale"); Foster v. Irwin , , ¶ 7, ("The terms 'possession' and 'personal possession' are not separately defined in the criminal code.").
State v. Carter 165 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Carter 165 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
"[T]he purpose [of the initiative] was to change Arizona’s drug control policy by treating drug abuse as a medical problem best handled by treatment and education, not by incarceration.” ¶ 3
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Thus, a defendant who has multiple prior convictions for drug offenses or any prior conviction for a violent crime is subject to “[s]tandard felony sentencing provisions that permit imprisonment.” -74 (2000).
State v. Givens 76 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Givens 76 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Christian 66 P.3d 1241 Ariz. 2003
State v. Christian 66 P.3d 1241 Ariz. 2003
¶ 3, discusses the purpose of Proposition 200, which is to deal with drug abuse by treatment and education rather than incarceration.
State v. Thues 54 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Thues 54 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Christian 47 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Christian 47 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
see also Text of Proposed Amendment §§ 2-3, Proposition 200, 1996 Ballot Propositions.
State v. Estrada 34 P.3d 356 Ariz. 2001
State v. Estrada 34 P.3d 356 Ariz. 2001
1 “Briefly stated, the purpose was to change Arizona’s drug control policy by treating drug abuse as a medical problem best handled by treatment and education, not by incarceration.” , , 273 ¶ 3 (2000).
State v. Roman 30 P.3d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Roman 30 P.3d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
in which our supreme court stated that the purpose of Proposition 200 was to requir[e] a probation sentence for a first or second conviction of personal use or possession.
State v. Pereyra 18 P.3d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Pereyra 18 P.3d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001