Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Silva, 216 P.3d 1203.

26 citing documents.

Jimmy N., Vashti H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Jimmy N., Vashti H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. McCartney 493 P.3d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. McCartney 493 P.3d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(citing Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., ); ¶ 13 (App. 2009).
State v. Copple Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Copple Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State V, McDonald Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State V, McDonald Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Blake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Blake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. George 313 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. George 313 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Rider v. Garcia 312 P.3d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Rider v. Garcia 312 P.3d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
In State v. Silva, we recognized that when the criminal charges are not dismissed, the court retains “continuing authority [under Rule 11.6(a)(4) ] to rule on the issue of defendant’s competency after the twenty-one month limit on restoration treatment orders” because civil commitment or guardianship proceedings may act as “further restoration treatment.” ¶ 18
State of Arizona v. Curtis T. Bunton 279 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Curtis T. Bunton 279 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
In Re Eric W. 271 P.3d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In Re Eric W. 271 P.3d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 18 , (holding that because “[t]he twenty-one month limit in the statute and rule governing [criminal] competency proceedings applies only to restoration treatment orders during an accused’s incompetency, not the superior court’s authority to determine competency,” the defendant’s
In Re Eddie O. 253 P.3d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
In Re Eddie O. 253 P.3d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
1845 , 32 L.Ed.2d 435 (1972).” ¶ 17
Gelb v. Department of Fire, Building & Life Safety 241 P.3d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Gelb v. Department of Fire, Building & Life Safety 241 P.3d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 9 , (noting issue of "subject matter jurisdiction is never waived and can be raised for the first time on appeal”).
State v. Lewis 233 P.3d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Followed State v. Lewis 233 P.3d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by