State v. Price
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BALES, Justice.
¶ 1 We accepted review to determine whether the defendant’s sentence was aggravated in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 305, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), which hold that the Sixth Amendment affords a right to have a jury, rather than a judge, determine any fact, other than a prior conviction, that increases a defendant’s statutory maximum sentence. The trial court imposed an aggravated sentence based on facts that the State now concedes were not found in…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Cunningham v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- State v. HendersonArizona Supreme Court · 2005
- United States v. Shannon Wayne TigheCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. SchmidtArizona Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. ZINSMEYERCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
- State of Arizona v. Dominic Rodolpho FloresCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
- People v. BattlesNew York Court of Appeals · 2010
- People v. BattlesNew York Court of Appeals · 2010
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.