DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In re a Disbarred Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Henry, 821 P.2d 1374.

17 citing documents.

  • State v. Jamison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Muehlhausen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Bieganski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    (presentence incarceration credit is applied only to one of the defendant’s sentences if consecutive sentences are imposed).
  • State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Beard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    4 STATE V. BEARD Decision of the Court ¶10 A defendant sentenced to consecutive sentences is entitled to presentence incarceration credit on just one sentence, “even if the defendant is in custody pursuant to all of the underlying charges prior to trial.”
  • State v. Krauch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    To establish a chain of custody, the State must demonstrate “continuity of possession,” and must reasonably show “that the evidence is intact and unaltered.”
  • State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    “When consecutive sentences are imposed, a defendant is not entitled to presentence incarceration credit on more than one of those sentences.” ( ).
  • State v. Mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Fuqua v. Dollar Tree Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Rodney George Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State v. Darelli 72 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. McClure 938 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    See Cuen, 158 Ariz. at 88 , 761 P.2d at 162
  • State v. Portis 929 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    To establish a sufficient chain of “custody for physical evidence, the offering party must show continuity of possession.”
  • State v. Johnson 905 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
    Although we agree that a prima facie case can be established by showing that the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to remove the only person of the same ethnicity as the defendant, , , the circumstances of this case fail to “raise an inference that the prosecutor used [his] peremptory strike to exclude [the] juror solely on account of race.”
  • State v. Hamilton 868 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    E.g., State v. Moran, supra; , State v. Lopez, supra