Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gonzales, 314 P.3d 582.

38 citing documents.

State v. Sy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Sy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
An unopposed presentence report containing a defendant’s criminal history “conclusively precludes prejudice.” ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (“A defendant who fails to object to the contents of a presentence report has waived objections as to the accuracy and completeness of the report.”).
State v. Mendivil Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Mendivil Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 11 (App. 2013) (“A defendant who fails to object to the contents of a presentence report has waived objections as to the accuracy and completeness of the report.”); ¶ 13 (App. 2007).
State v. Schoch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Schoch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
And though “an unobjected-to- presentence report showing a prior conviction to which the defendant stipulated without the benefit of a Rule 17.6 colloquy conclusively precludes prejudice and a remand,” ¶ 11 (App. 2013), the unchallenged presentence report in this case (styled as a “Probation Violation Report”) referenced only one of the six convictions at issue.
State v. Roeschen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Roeschen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Trimble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Trimble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-62, ¶¶ 10-11, 13 (2007) (absence of colloquy not prejudicial if convictions may be proved by other uncontested evidence in the record); -59, ¶¶ 11-12 (App. 2013); ¶ 26 (2005).
State v. Gamble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Gamble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 29 (App. 2005); ¶ 11 (App. 2013) ("A defendant who fails to object to the contents of a presentence report has waived objections as to the accuracy and completeness of the report.").
State v. Reidhead Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Reidhead Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 11 (App. 2013) (“[A]n unobjected-to presentence report showing a prior conviction to which the defendant stipulated without the benefit of a Rule 17.6 colloquy conclusively precludes prejudice and a remand under Morales.”).
State v. Maestas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Maestas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-58, ¶¶ 8-9 (App. 2013) ("Proof of prior convictions is typically achieved through an evidentiary hearing in which the State presents a certified copy of the conviction or equivalent evidence as well as proof that the defendant is the person identified in the document.").
State v. Bracy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Bracy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 11 (App. 2013) (holding that “an unobjected- to presentence report showing a prior conviction to which the defendant stipulated without the benefit of a Rule 17.6 colloquy conclusively precludes prejudice and a remand under [].”).
State v. Clayborn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Clayborn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kirby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kirby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
at 61, ¶ 7; ¶ 8 (App. 2013).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Valdez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Valdez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Morales, 215 Ariz. at 61, ¶¶ 6–7, 10; ¶ 8 (App. 2013).
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fouch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fouch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 11, (holding that “an unobjected-to presentence report showing a prior conviction to which the defendant stipulated without the benefit of a Rule 17.6 colloquy conclusively precludes prejudice and a remand under Morales”).
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-59, ¶¶ 11-12, -86 (App. 2013).
State v. Alcantar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Alcantar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014