1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.3d
  4. 65 P.3d
  5. 65 P.3d 469 (2003)
 

STATE v. MUTSCHLER

Nos. 1 CA-CR 02-0002, 1 CA-CR 02-0003, 1 CA-CR 02-0004, 1 CA-CR 02-0005.

65 P.3d 469 (2003)

204 Ariz. 520

STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. G. Robert MUTSCHLER, Ruth Van Brunschot, Milo J. Fencl, and Frank Magarelli, Appellants.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department C.

April 1, 2003.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Peter Van Haren, City Attorney By Brian W. Rock, Assistant City Prosecutor, Phoenix, Attorneys for Appellee.

Hentoff Law Office By Nicholas S. Hentoff, Phoenix, Attorneys for Appellants.

OPINION

IRVINE, Judge.

¶ 1 The sole issue on appeal is whether Phoenix City Code ("P.C.C.") § 23-54 (1999) as written at the time of the defendants' convictions was unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad.1 For the following reasons, we find the ordinance was neither vague nor overbroad and we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 The defendants were convicted in Phoenix City Court for violating...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases