Legal Opinion

State v. Rodriguez-Gonzales

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided June 16, 2004No. 2 CA-CR 2002-0285, 2 CA-CR 2002-0431PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ESPINOSA, Chief Judge.

V1 In consolidated direct appeals, appellants Armando Rodriguez-Gonzalez and William Hieber challenge their sentences. Both had originally been sentenced following guilty pleas but had been granted new sentencing hearings through successful post-conviction proceedings pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R.Crim. P., 17 A.R.S. Appellants argue that this court has subject matter jurisdiction and that they are not required to engage in further Rule 32 proceedings to challenge their new sentences. For the reasons set forth below, we disagree and dismiss the appeals.

Facts and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
  2. State v. JimenezCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1996
  3. State v. PyeattCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1983

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State of Arizona v. Pablo Rodriguez CelayaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2006
  2. State v. PONSARTCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
  3. State of Arizona v. John George Ponsart Jr.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
  4. State v. RegenoldArizona Supreme Court · 2011
  5. State v. RegenoldArizona Supreme Court · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API