State of Arizona v. Matthew Erich Manzanedo
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Concurrence
ESPINOSA, Judge,
specially concurring.
¶ 19 I concur in the disposition and all aspects of the decision except the analysis of the Blakely sentencing issue in ¶ 16. It is unnecessary to hinge the determination of whether any Blakely error occurred on whether the trial court found any mitigating factors, when Manzanedo’s sentence was clearly authorized by his undisputed prior felony convictions. See State v. Estrada, 210 Ariz. 111, 108 P.3d 261 (App.2005); State v. Chiappetta, 210 Ariz. 40, 107 P.3d 366 (App.2005) (Espinosa, J.); see also State v. Martinez, 209 Ariz. 280, 100 P.3d 30 (App.2004).…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Harris v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- State v. MartinezCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
- State v. BurdickCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
- State v. ChiappettaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005