Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Regenold

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 2011No. CR-10-0154-PRPublished

1DissentPelander, Justice

¶ 13 I respectfully dissent, but not because the majority does violence to the wording of A.R.S. § 13-4033. In fact, the majority’s interpretation of that statute is plausible and perhaps preferable for the policy reasons set forth in ¶ 11, supra. In my view, however, the more reasonable and logical interpretation of § 13-4033(B) precludes Regenold’s appeal because, at bottom, he is appealing from a sentence “entered pursuant to a plea agreement.” Indeed, in the only issue raised on appeal, Regenold directly challenges his plea agreement’s prescribed sentencing range under which the trial…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State v. SpreitzArizona Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Hernandez v. FrohmillerArizona Supreme Court · 1949
  3. State v. WiseArizona Supreme Court · 1983
  4. State v. WiseArizona Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Campbell v. ArnoldArizona Supreme Court · 1979

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API