Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. MENDOZA-TAPIA, 273 P.3d 676.

36 citing documents.

State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶71 “We review a [superior] court’s decision on whether to order an examination and competency hearing for [an] abuse of discretion.” ¶ 22 (App. 2012).
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
No ruling on the motion appears to be in the record, but “when a court fails to expressly rule on a motion, we deem it denied.” ¶ 22 (App. 2012).
State v. Sills Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Sills Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
§ 13-4501(3); ¶ 22 (App. 2012) ("The [federal constitutional] test for competency is whether the defendant 'has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.'" (quoting Dusk
Bennie v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Bennie v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“When a court fails to expressly rule on a motion, we deem it denied.” ¶ 22 (App. 2012).
State v. Evans 506 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Evans 506 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Schwartzkopf v. Schwartzkopf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Schwartzkopf v. Schwartzkopf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Strojnik v. Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Strojnik v. Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 22 (App. 2012) (observing that “[w]hen a court fails to expressly rule on a motion, we deem it denied.” ().
Ward v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ward v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Even assuming this court has appellate jurisdiction over the contempt ruling, which typically would be addressed through special action, “when a court fails to expressly rule on a [petition], we deem it denied.” ¶ 22 (App. 2012) ().
Citibank v. Lambert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Citibank v. Lambert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
But “[w]hen a court fails to expressly rule on a motion, we deem it denied.” ¶ 22 (App. 2012).
State v. Axton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Axton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(When a court fails to rule on a motion, the appellate court deems it denied.); ¶ 22 (App. 2012).
State v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶15 Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the court's ruling, Bunton, 230 Ariz. at 53, ¶ 9, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refraining from sua sponte ordering a new competency evaluation, ¶ 23 5 STATE v. CLARK Decision of the Court (App. 2012) ("In determining whether reasonable grounds exist, the trial court may rely on its own observations.") (citation omitted).
Alcott v. Killebrew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Alcott v. Killebrew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Nonetheless, “when a court fails to expressly rule on a motion, we deem it denied.” ¶ 22 (App. 2012) ().
Marceaux v. Baker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Marceaux v. Baker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Capital One v. Castronova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Capital One v. Castronova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“When a court fails to expressly rule on a motion, we deem it denied.” ¶ 22 (App. 2012).
State v. Chavarria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Chavarria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶¶ 14–16 (App. 2012) (“Whether the family knew about the threat to use a gun was inconsequential.”).
State v. Laakmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Laakmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
A trial judge has “a continuing duty to inquire into a defendant’s competency.” ¶ 22
State of Arizona v. Amy Kay Gustafson 311 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Amy Kay Gustafson 311 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(law of case doctrine inapplicable in case involving different defendant, judge and trial).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by