Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In re Shannon, 890 P.2d 602.

55 citing documents.

State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
A court’s failure to allow a defendant to address the court before pronouncing the sentence does not require resentencing “unless the defendant can show that he would have added something to the mitigating evidence already presented.”
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“[E]ven if a court forgets to invite the defendant to speak, there is no need for resentencing unless the defendant can show that he would have added something to the mitigating evidence already presented.”).
State v. Pita Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
§§ 13-703(C), (J) (outlining the available sentences for a category three repetitive offender), -708(C) (prohibiting imposition of a sentence less than the presumptive when the defendant commits a felony offense while on parole for conviction of a prior felony offense); (concluding the court's failure to invite the defendant to speak at sentencing did not require resentencing where the defendant did not ask to speak and failed to establish what he would have offered in mitigation that had not al
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
See, e.g., Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2738 (2015); Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 41 (2008)
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Lovelle Joseph 283 P.3d 27 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner 280 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2012
Defendant acknowledges that this argument was rejected in Van Adams, 194 Ariz. at 422 ¶ 55, 984 P.2d at 30
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
Nelson raises twenty-two issues to avoid preclusion on federal review.
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Delahanty 250 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2011
State v. Don Chappell 236 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
This court rejected this argument in State v. Van Adams, 194 Ariz. 408, 422 ¶ 55
State v. Bearup 211 P.3d 684 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
See State v. Hinchey, 181 Ariz. 307, 315, (considering and rejecting argument that death by lethal - 30 - injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment).
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
The Court rejected this proposition in Van Adams, 194 Ariz. at 422, ¶ 55, 984 P.2d at 30 ( ).
State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Granville 123 P.3d 662 Ariz. 2005
¶20 Our cases have on occasion discussed the evaluation and assessment of mitigating circumstances as a “weighing” process, see, -14, -09 (1995); Gretzler, 135 Ariz. at 54, 659 P.2d at 13, which has led to the implication that mitigating circumstances must “outweigh” aggravating factors for life to be the appropriate sentence.
State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
State v. Roseberry 111 P.3d 402 Ariz. 2005
State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
State v. Carreon 107 P.3d 900 Ariz. 2005
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
In re Jonah T. 994 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In re Jonah T. 994 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. White 982 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1999
However, the court is not required to accept model-prisoner evidence as mitigating, -15 , -10 (1995).
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
In Re a Member of the State Bar 951 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1998
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
Lethal gas or injection cruel and unusual punishment
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
-15 , -10 (1995), this court held that a sentencing judge is not required to accept in mitigation the fact that a defendant has been a model prisoner.