Legal Opinion

State v. Reinhardt

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided June 29, 2004No. 1 CA-CR 02-1003PRPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

GEMMILL, Judge.

¶ 1 In 1996, Arizona voters enacted the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act, commonly referred to as Proposition 200, which is codified primarily in Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13-901.01 (2001). Charles Edward Reinhardt was convicted of three drug offenses that occurred simultaneously in 2001: possession of a dangerous drug (methamphetamine), possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. These offenses are subject to the provisions of Proposition 200. Although this was Reinhardt’s first “time” to be convicted of such drug…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Calik v. KongableArizona Supreme Court · 1999
  2. State v. EstradaArizona Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Fisher v. Maricopa County Stadium DistrictCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1995
  4. State v. StoryCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
  5. State v. GallagherCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State of Arizona v. Linda Ann SiplivyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
  2. State v. GomezCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2004

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

Powered by the Exa API