Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. MacIas, 469 P.3d 472.

56 citing documents.

  • State v. Herrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    ¶ 19 (2012); ¶ 16 (App. 2020).
  • State v. Serrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. Serrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    ¶ 115 (2009); ¶ 11 (App. 2020); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
  • Toliver v. US Bank National Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Toliver v. US Bank National Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    “Judicial rulings alone do not support a finding of bias or partiality without a showing of an extrajudicial source of bias or deep- seated favoritism.” ¶ 22 (App. 2020).
  • Johnson v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • Johnson v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    “[W]e presume that a judicial officer is impartial, and the party challenging the officer’s impartiality must prove bias or prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence.” ¶ 22 (App. 2020) (citation 5 JOHNSON v. STATE, et al. Decision of the Court modified) ( ¶ 14 (2013)).
  • State v. Crockett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Crockett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    Evans, 252 Ariz. at 595, ¶ 10; ¶ 20 (App. 2020).
  • State v. Harvey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    -41, ¶¶ 17-18 (App. 2020).
  • State v. Jumper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Jumper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    DISCUSSION ¶5 We review the superior court’s denial of a petition for PCR for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but review the interpretation of the criminal rules and the court’s legal 2 STATE v. JUMPER Decision of the Court conclusions de novo, ¶ 12 (App. 2019); State v.
  • State v. Baca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Baca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    “Even a single partial juror violates a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.” ¶ 10 (App. 2020) (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    DISCUSSION ¶7 We review the superior court’s denial of a petition for PCR for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but review the interpretation of the Criminal Rules de novo, ¶ 12 (App. 2019).
  • State v. Riepe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Riepe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    DISCUSSION ¶7 We review the superior court’s denial of a PCR petition for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but review the interpretation of the Criminal Rules de novo, ¶ 12 (App. 2019).
  • Brevetti v. Brevetti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Brevetti v. Brevetti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    “Judicial rulings alone do not support a finding of bias or partiality without a showing of an extrajudicial source of bias or deep-seated favoritism.” ¶ 22 (App. 2020); ¶ 14 (App. 2014) (“Judicial bias or prejudice ordinarily must arise from an extrajudicial source and not from what the judge has done in his participation in the case.”) (citations omitted).
  • State v. Cochran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Cochran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Stuebe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Stuebe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    DISCUSSION ¶9 We review the superior court’s denial of PCR for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but review the interpretation of the Criminal Rules de novo, –15, ¶ 12 (App. 2019).
  • State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    DISCUSSION ¶11 We review the superior court’s denial of PCR for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but review the interpretation of the Criminal Rules de novo, –15, ¶ 12 (App. 2019).
  • State v. Calandra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Calandra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    P. 32.2(a); ¶ 20 (App. 2020).
  • State v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Qureshi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Qureshi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Cline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Cline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    “Judicial rulings alone do not support a finding of bias or partiality without a showing of an extrajudicial source of bias or deep-seated favoritism.” ¶ 22 (App. 2020).
  • State v. Estevez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    State v. 4 ¶ 19 (2012); ¶ 16 (App. 2020).
  • State v. Estevez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    ¶ 4 (2017); ¶ 16 (App. 2020).
  • State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶ 19 (2012); ¶ 16 (App. 2020).
  • John K. v. Dcs, C.Z. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • John K. v. Dcs, C.Z. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶ 22 (App. 2020) (citation omitted).
  • 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
    ¶ 19 (2012); ¶ 16 (App. 2020).
  • State v. Lipsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Lipsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶ 19 (2012); ¶ 16 (App. 2020).
  • State v. Curry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Curry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 19 (2012); ¶ 16 (App. 2020) (“We review for an abuse of discretion the superior court’s denial of post-conviction relief based on lack of a colorable claim.”).
  • State v. Reed 501 P.3d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Reed 501 P.3d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶ 19 (2012); ¶ 16 (App. 2020).