Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cazares, 72 P.3d 355.

55 citing documents.

State v. Truvillion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Whitebird Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Whitebird Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶13 The superior court “has broad discretion to determine the appropriate penalty to impose upon conviction.” ¶ 6 (App. 2003).
State v. Evans 506 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Evans 506 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 4 (App. 2003) (interpreting a previous version of Rule 32.1(c) that 5 STATE v. EVANS Opinion of the Court allowed challenge for a sentence not imposed “in accordance with” Arizona law for pleading defendants)
State v. Dumont Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Dumont Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 8 (App. 2003); ¶ 22 (App. 2005) (describing sentencing judge “weighing and balancing aggravating and mitigating factors” to determine sentence within statutory range).
State v. Hoskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hoskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
§ 13-701(E), the court “is not required to accept such evidence,” ¶ 8 (App. 2003) (“[A] sentencing court is not required to find that mitigating circumstances exist merely because mitigating evidence is presented; the court is only required to give the evidence due consideration.”); Carbajal, 177 Ariz. at 463 (“The consideration of mitigating circumstances is entirely within t
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 8 (App. 2003) ("[A] sentencing court is not required to find that mitigating circumstances exist merely because mitigating evidence is presented; the court is only required to give the evidence due consideration."); see also A.R.S.
State v. Kornack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Kornack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 6 (2003) (“A trial court has broad discretion to determine the appropriate penalty to impose upon conviction, and we will not disturb a sentence that is within statutory limits, as petitioner’s is, unless it clearly appears that the court abused its discretion.”); ¶ 11, n.3
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Marques Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Marques Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Viliborghi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Viliborghi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 8, (“The weight to be given any factor asserted in mitigation rests within the trial court’s sound discretion.”).
State v. Luke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Luke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.2(a); ¶ 4, (recognizing that a claim of an illegal sentence must be timely presented); ¶ 4, (stating that claims of an illegal sentence are covered by Rule 32.1(c), not Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g), or (h)).
State v. Hazzard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hazzard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.2(a); ¶ 4 (2008); ¶ 4 (App. 2003).
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
A sentencing court, however, “is not required to find that mitigating circumstances exist merely because mitigating evidence is presented; the court is only required to give the evidence due consideration,” and the weight to be given any mitigating evidence “rests within the trial court’s sound discretion.” ¶ 8, (“The consideration of mitigating circumstances is solely within the discretion of the trial court.” (citation omitted)).
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dagenais Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dagenais Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
unless it clearly appears that the court abused its discretion.” ¶ 6
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
unless it clearly appears that the court abused its discretion.” ¶ 6, ( ).
State v. Dorsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dorsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Webb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Moreover, “[we] will find an abuse of sentencing discretion only if the court acted arbitrarily or capriciously or failed to adequately investigate the facts relevant to sentencing.” ¶ 6, see Hernandez, 231 Ariz. at 355, ¶ 3, 295 P.3d at 453.
State of Arizona v. Susan Irene Hernandez 295 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Susan Irene Hernandez 295 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
And we will find such an abuse of discretion “only if the court acted arbitrarily or capriciously or failed to adequately investigate the facts relevant to sentencing.”
State of Arizona v. Della Lisa Vermuele Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Della Lisa Vermuele Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Olmstead 145 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006