DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Carter, 165 P.3d 687.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Schoch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Schoch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    –91, ¶¶ 20–23 (App. 2007).
  • State v. Varela 425 P.3d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
  • State v. Varela 425 P.3d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
    Cf. State v. Carter , , ¶ 24, (declining to accept evidence "offered for the first time on appeal").
  • State v. Lieser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Lieser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    at ¶ 8, and should include inquiry into whether the defendant “understood the nature of the stipulation, the constitutional rights he was [forgoing] and his right to require the State to prove the prior conviction.” ¶ 13
  • State v. Bedoni Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Bedoni Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ., there would be no point in remanding for a hearing merely to again admit the conviction records”); ¶ 20, (providing that when the record contains the documented evidence of the prior convictions that the defendant stipulated, whether the defendant “could establish that he would not have admitted his prior convictions if he had been given a Rule 17.6 colloquy” is irrelevant).
  • State v. Fouch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Fouch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Gonzales 314 P.3d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Gonzales 314 P.3d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    13 , 157 P.3d at 482 (holding that a remand was unnecessary because the certified copies of defendant’s prior convictions already in the record conclusively disproved prejudice resulting from the omission of a Rule 17.6 colloquy); ¶¶ 19-20 , vacated in part on other grounds, , -91, ¶¶ 20-22 , -92 (App.2007).
  • State v. Young 282 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • State v. Young 282 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • State v. Bunting 246 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State v. Bunting 246 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    ¶ 27 , (holding that if, on remand, the defendant could prove he was prejudiced by the trial court's failure to engage in a Rule 17.6 colloquy, his sentence must be vacated and the defendant must be resentenced).
  • State v. Allen 207 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Allen 207 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    (remanding to determine if the defendant knew he was waiving his right to confront his accusers and his privilege against self-incrimination by pleading guilty); ¶ 27 , (holding that defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to prove he was prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to conduct a Rule 17 colloquy in connection with a stipulated prior conviction).
  • State v. Geeslin 212 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Geeslin 212 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Osborn 204 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Osborn 204 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    ¶ 10 The State also argues, essentially, ¶ 2 , is flawed.
  • State v. Avila 170 P.3d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Avila 170 P.3d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    ¶ 24 , (“On appeal, we neither expect nor, in the ordinary case, permit a defendant to offer factual evidence outside the superior court record.”).