State v. Regenold
Arizona Supreme Court
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
- State v. SpreitzArizona Supreme Court · 2002
- Hernandez v. FrohmillerArizona Supreme Court · 1949
- State v. WiseArizona Supreme Court · 1983
- State v. WiseArizona Supreme Court · 1983
- Campbell v. ArnoldArizona Supreme Court · 1979
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.