DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Flores, 188 P.3d 706.

59 citing documents.

  • State v. Mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    ¶ 12 (App. 2013); –10 ¶ 6 (App. 2008).
  • State v. Braband Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    ¶9 A voluntarily entered plea agreement waives all non- jurisdictional defects before the entry of the plea, including “deprivations of constitutional rights.” –10 ¶ 6 (App. 2008); Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973) (stating “a guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal process” and a criminal defendant may not later “raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights” that antedated
  • State v. Watson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    –10, ¶ 6 (App. 2008); Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973) (explaining a guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal process and a criminal defendant may not later raise independent claims relating to deprivation of constitutional rights that antedated the
  • State v. Godoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Godoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Ortega v. Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Ortega v. Robles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Collison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Collison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    –10, ¶ 6 (App. 2008) (entering a guilty plea waives a defendant's challenge to all non-jurisdictional defects, including the deprivation of constitutional rights); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
  • State v. Walls-Bey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Walls-Bey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    -10 ¶ 6 (App. 2008) (“A plea agreement waives all non-jurisdictional defects.”).
  • State v. Street Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Street Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Norman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Norman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    does not require that the victim engage in what the enticer intends”); (recognizing that solicitation “requires no agreement or action by the person solicited” and “is complete when the solicitor, acting with the requisite intent, makes the request”).
  • Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Snook v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    (“Title 25 defines the boundaries of a dissolution court’s jurisdiction, and the court may not exceed its jurisdiction even when exercising its equitable powers.”); ¶ 6 (App. 2008); -36, ¶ 7 (App. 2002).
  • State v. Calvillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Calvillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Estevez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Estevez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Lay v. Hon. nelson/state 436 P.3d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Lay v. Hon. nelson/state 436 P.3d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Hibbler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Hibbler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Robertson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Robertson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Wright v. Hon. gates/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Wright v. Hon. gates/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    The crime of solicitation is a “crime separate from the crime solicited.” ¶ 7 (App. 2008).
  • State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    – 09 (App. 2008); see also Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973) (“A guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal process.
  • State v. Lanfor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Lanfor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Raymond John 308 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Raymond John 308 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State v. Chairez 327 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State v. Chairez 327 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    -09 (App.2008) (guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects, including deprivations of constitutional rights).
  • Francisco F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 266 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • Francisco F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 266 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • State v. Yegan 221 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Yegan 221 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    § 13-108(A)(1) is an “expression of intent to exercise jurisdiction over a crime, wherever committed, when the ‘effect’ or ‘result’ of *216 such crime occurs in Arizona.” 5 ¶ 17
  • State v. Silva 216 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Silva 216 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    -09 (App. 2008).5 Fimbres was indicted for credit card forgery pursuant to § 13- 2104(A)(2), but the trial court instructed the jury sua sponte that it could find Fimbres guilty not only pursuant to § 13-2104(A)(2), as indicted, but also for altering a credit card or manufacturing or utterin
  • State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009