Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Wagstaff, 775 P.2d 1130.

175 citing documents.

State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
P. 4 STATE v. DAVIS Cattani, J., dissenting in part 33.16(c)(4); (citing cases)
State v. Coli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Coli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Thus, “[s]ummary dismissal is inappropriate when the petition presents a colorable claim[, which is] one that has the appearance of validity; that is, if the allegations were taken to be true, the petitioner would be entitled to relief.” -72 (App. 1988) (citation omitted), approved but modified in part
State v. Campos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Campos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
P. 33.16(c)(2)(B) (limiting review to “issues the trial court decided”); (reviewing court will not consider even meritorious issues that were not first presented to the superior court).
State v. Watson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Watson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
P. 33.16(c)(2)(B) (limiting review to issues decided by the superior court); (reviewing court does not consider even meritorious issues unless they were presented to the superior court).
State v. Covarrubias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Covarrubias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
P. 32.9(c)(4)(B); ¶ 42 (App. 2007) (both holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hollingsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Keddy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Keddy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); approved as modified, P.2d 118 (1990)
State v. Roper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Roper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); approved as modified, (declining to consider ineffective assistance of counsel claim where petitioner failed to specify how superior court erred, denying the superior court “an opportunity to review meritorious issues”); (declining
State v. Faccio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Faccio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1); approved as modified
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9 (c)(1); approved as modified, P.2d 118 (1990)
State v. Hussein Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hussein Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(appellate court will not consider even meritorious issues that were not first presented to the trial court).
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
modified on other grounds, P.2d 118 (1990); -78, -39 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Rojo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Rojo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-78, 3 STATE v. ROJO Decision of the Court -39 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P.2d 236 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Manygoats Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Manygoats Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
modified on other grounds, P.2d 118 (1990); -78, -39 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Felix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Felix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.6(d) (petitioner may not amend a petition for post-conviction relief to raise new issues absent leave of court upon a showing of good cause); (“Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be denied relief.”); (appellate court will not consider meritorious issues not first presented to the trial court).
State v. Sovero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sovero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See, -78 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Valdespino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Valdespino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); –78 (App. 1991); ¶ 41 (App. 2007); (both holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
modified on other grounds, P.2d 118 (1990).
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Barela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017