State v. Canaday

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[T]he procedures delineated in rule 17 must be followed whenever a prior conviction is admitted, whether such conviction is alleged for the purpose of increasing punishment or as an element of the crime charged * * *.”
• clear language of Rule 17.6, Ariz. R.Crim. P., governs when defendants admit prior conviction for purposes of increasing punishment and as element of offense, despite comment that rule “applies only to prior offenses which are an element of the crime”
• clear language of Rule 17.6, Ariz. R. Crim. P., governs when defendants admit prior conviction for purposes of increasing punishment and as element of offense, despite comment that rule “applies only to prior offenses which are an element of the crime”
• “We hold that the procedures delineated in rule 17 must be followed whenever a prior conviction is admitted, whether such prior conviction is alleged for the purpose of increasing punishment or as an element of the crime charged, as mandated by the clear language of rule 17.6.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Gillies
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1983-03-01· cited 219×
• State v. Gonzales
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2013-12-19· cited 19×
• State v. Johnson
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1984-10-11· cited 14×
• State v. Bernal
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1983-09-28· cited 13×
• State v. Woratzeck
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1981-10-08· cited 11×
• State v. Cook
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 11×
• Jacob T. Osterkamp v. State of Arizona
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2011-02-25

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Allen
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1974-07-17· cited 13×
• State v. Gholson
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1976-01-14· cited 7×