State v. Escobedo

Court of Appeals of Arizona

State v. Escobedo

226 P.3d 1038, 224 Ariz. 52, 2010 Ariz. App. LEXIS 68

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedFebruary 16, 2010

Docket1 CA-CR 08-0295

StatusPublished

This text of 226 P.3d 1038 (State v. Escobedo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Escobedo, 226 P.3d 1038, 224 Ariz. 52, 2010 Ariz. App. LEXIS 68 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION ORDER

This matter was remanded to the Court of Appeals by the Arizona Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of State v. Soliz, 223 Ariz. 116, 219 P.3d 1045 (2009). This matter has been considered by Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judges Daniel A. Barker and Margaret H. Downie.

Because Soliz does not change the outcome of this matter there is no requirement for briefing with regard to the remand for reconsideration. In Soliz, the court found that “as long as a lesser sentence may legally be imposed for the crime alleged,” and such a lesser sentence was in fact imposed, there is no error in failing to empanel a twelve-person jury. Id. at 120, ¶ 16, 219 P.3d at 1049. A sentence of less than thirty years was legally imposed here. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED affirming the proceedings below.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DECISION ORDER

This matter was remanded to the Court of Appeals by the Arizona Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of State v. Soliz, 223 Ariz. 116, 219 P.3d 1045 (2009). This matter has been considered by Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judges Daniel A. Barker and Margaret H. Downie.

Because Soliz does not change the outcome of this matter there is no requirement for briefing with regard to the remand for reconsideration. In Soliz, the court found that “as long as a lesser sentence may legally be imposed for the crime alleged,” and such a lesser sentence was in fact imposed, there is no error in failing to empanel a twelve-person jury. Id. at 120, ¶ 16, 219 P.3d at 1049. A sentence of less than thirty years was legally imposed here. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED affirming the proceedings below.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 P.3d 1038, 224 Ariz. 52, 2010 Ariz. App. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-escobedo-arizctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack