Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Childress, 214 P.3d 422.

30 citing documents.

State v. Shwar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Shwar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Whether an encounter is consensual “depends on the totality of the circumstances and whether a reasonable person under those circumstances would have felt free to leave.” ¶ 11 (App. 2009).
State v. Kochendarfer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Kochendarfer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. 10 STATE v. KOCHENDARFER Campbell, J., specially concurring Childress, ¶ 11 (App. 2009) (citing United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980)).
State v. Mason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Mason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 11 (App. 2009) (citing United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980)).
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Weaver 418 P.3d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Weaver 418 P.3d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Although we will uphold the court's ruling for any legally correct reason supported by the record, see State v. Childress , , ¶ 9, we are reluctant to say the court made an implicit determination that he was incompetent to represent himself.
State v. Culver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Culver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“We will uphold the court’s ruling if legally correct for any reason supported by the record.” ¶ 9 (App. 2009).
Lund v. Lund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lund v. Lund Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 9 (App. 2009) ( ¶ 51 (2002)).
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ramiro Moreno 340 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ramiro Moreno 340 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Notice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Notice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 10, (“the Fourth Amendment 4 STATE v. NOTICE Decision of the Court prohibits only unreasonable seizures”); (“Only unreas
State v. Yonkman 274 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Yonkman 274 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
We nonetheless ordered supplemental briefing because we must affirm a trial court if its ruling is legally correct for any reason found in the record, , and the United States Supreme Court has stated, albeit in dicta, that a second interrogation must be custodial for the Edwards rule to apply.
State of Arizona v. Orleans P. Estrella Juan Carlos Holguin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Orleans P. Estrella Juan Carlos Holguin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
See Petty, 225 Ariz. 369, ¶ 7, 238 P.3d at 640 (plain language of rule “clearest reflection” of supreme court’s 6 Although we will uphold a trial court if it is correct for any reason supported by the record, this issue was not developed below in any meaningful way; the defendants’ motion to preclude cited only non- binding authority for their arguments, and no evidence was presented.
State v. Hummons 236 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Hummons 236 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
“Because the Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable seizures, the first step in analyzing an alleged Fourth Amendment violation is determining whether a seizure oc *256 curred.” , see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16 , 88 S.Ct.
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. NOCEO 221 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Edward Charles Noceo, Michael Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Edward Charles Noceo, Michael Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(“An abuse of discretion occurs when the reasons given by the court for its decision are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.”).
State v. NOCEO 221 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(“An abuse of discretion occurs when the reasons given by the court for its decision are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice.”).