Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1/9/1992
State v. Bowles
Citations
- 841 P.2d 209
- 173 Ariz. 214
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that “when there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the minute entry,” it may be resolved by referring to the record
- providing that when the oral pronouncement of a sentence and the minute entry differ, a remand is unnecessary if the record indicates that the minute entry contains a clerical error
- finding remand for clarification of sentence is appropriate where discrepancy “cannot be resolved by reference to the record”
- when an appellate court can determine the superior court's intent from the record, remand for clarification is unnecessary
- when an appellate court can determine the superior court's intent from the record, remand for clarification is unnecessary
- when an appellate court can determine the superior court's intent from the record, remand for clarification is unnecessary
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Shelley, Fidel, Voss
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. StevensCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1992-12-24· cited 40×
- State v. ContrerasCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1994-05-17· cited 30×
- Meineke v. GAB Business Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1999-07-13· cited 27×
- State of Arizona v. Francisco Antonio LopezCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 2012-06-29· cited 15×
- State v. VerdugoCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1993-11-30· cited 7×
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.