State v. Hinden
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge.
¶ 1 After a jury trial, appellant Jeffrey Hinden was convicted of third-degree burglary pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1506(A)(1). The trial court sentenced him to a mitigated term of 1.5 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, he argues the state presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction because it failed to prove the property he had entered was a “fenced commercial yard” as defined in A.R.S. § 13-1501(4). 1 For the following reasons, we agree and vacate his conviction.
Factual and Procedural Background
¶ 2 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Janson v. ChristensenArizona Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. WilliamsArizona Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. JonesArizona Supreme Court · 1980
- State Ex Rel. Morrison v. AnwayArizona Supreme Court · 1960
- State v. CoxArizona Supreme Court · 2007
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- State of Arizona v. Robert Francisco BorquezCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
- State v. BoldingCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
- State v. MohajerinCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
- State of Arizona v. Anthony LewisCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
- State of Arizona v. Joann BonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.