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. Wagstaff, 775 P.2d 1130.

175 citing documents.

  • State v. Vallardares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    P.2d 924, 927 (App. 1980); Ariz. R. Crim.
  • Marriage of Woodworth v. Woodworth 42 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Marriage of Woodworth v. Woodworth 42 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    -70 , -1134 (App.1988) (citations omitted).
  • State v. Herrera 905 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Herrera 905 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    (“Failure to argue a claim usually constitutes abandonment and waiver of that claim.”); , (this court will not review meritorious issues not presented to trial court in motion for rehearing from denial of post-conviction relief).
  • State v. Krum 903 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Krum 903 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1995
    Disagreeing with the trial court, the court of appeals concluded that the third-party affidavits Krum presented with his second Rule 32 , modified on other grounds
  • State v. Krum 893 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Krum 893 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    Petitioner counters that his counsel’s failure to submit third-party affidavits to the court constitutes ineffectiveness because similar affidavits were found by this court to establish a , modified on other grounds
  • State v. Bortz 821 P.2d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Bortz 821 P.2d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    modified, , (where petitioner failed to specify in motion for rehearing specifically how trial court erred, appellate court declined to consider claims).
  • State v. Wagstaff 794 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Wagstaff 794 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1990
    The exclusive power to grant parole rests with the Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles.”
  • State v. Berger 793 P.2d 1093 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Berger 793 P.2d 1093 Ariz. 1990
    We granted review because of an apparent conflict with the court of appeals’
  • Fisher v. Superior Court 775 P.2d 1106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • Fisher v. Superior Court 775 P.2d 1106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    in which Division One of this court held that the lifetime parole provisions of A.R.S.
  • State v. Stellwagen 775 P.2d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Stellwagen 775 P.2d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    This court ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of *616 whether the imposition of lifetime probation is a valid and enforceable sentence in light of this court’s
  • State v. Berger 790 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Berger 790 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    LIFETIME PAROLE Defendant argues that the trial court’s order placing him on lifetime parole should be vacated pursuant to this court’s , review granted, Nov.
  • State v. Behl 774 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Behl 774 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Lee 774 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Lee 774 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    LIFETIME PAROLE In its answering brief, the state requests this court to review the trial court’s imposition of lifetime parole for “possible fundamental error,” , review granted Nov.