Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Warren, 604 P.2d 660.

32 citing documents.

Deebes v. Deebes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Deebes v. Deebes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(When a court allows inadmissible evidence, we will “assume, unless it affirmatively appears to the contrary, that the [court] only considered the competent evidence in arriving at the final judgment.”).
Journey v. Bourgeois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Journey v. Bourgeois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
& Source, ¶ 25 (2000); see also State 4 (even where inadmissible evidence is admitted, we will “assume, unless it affirmatively appears to the contrary, that the [superior court] judge only considered the competent evidence in arriving at the final judgment.”).
State v. Zavala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Zavala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
STATE OF ARIZONA v. THOMAS GREG McCURDY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
STATE OF ARIZONA v. THOMAS GREG McCURDY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(finding no reversible error in presentence report that contained “numerous references to crimes that the defendant was either never charged with or to charges in which he ha[d] been acquitted”).
Marriage of Fuentes v. Fuentes 97 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Marriage of Fuentes v. Fuentes 97 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State of Arizona v. Powers 23 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
-16 , -56 (1995); , (admission of improper evidence in bench trial does not require reversal because, unless it appears otherwise, appellate court will assume trial judge only considered competent evidence).
State v. Ross 804 P.2d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Ross 804 P.2d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Watton 793 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1990
State v. Watton 793 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1990
(quoting Dixon, 21 Ariz.App.
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Delinquency Action No. 97036-02 792 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Delinquency Action No. 97036-02 792 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
In a trial to the bench, however, the rule has been stated that “the appellate court will assume, unless it affirmatively appears to the contrary, that the trial judge only considered the competent evidence in arriving at the final judgment.”
State v. Shuler 780 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Shuler 780 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Two subsequent cases, State v. Stanley, 123 * P.2d 998 (App.1979) , cite Dixon with approval, although in both of them it appears that the sentencing courts probably had more information before them relating to prior bad acts than the mere report of an arrest.
State v. Grier 707 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1985
State v. Grier 707 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1985
it is clear here that the resentencing court relied on the reports and was adversely influenced by content which may have been erroneous.
State v. Chudy 706 P.2d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Chudy 706 P.2d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Henley 687 P.2d 1220 Ariz. 1984
State v. Henley 687 P.2d 1220 Ariz. 1984
State v. Gunter 643 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Gunter 643 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
this court held that the “identical elements test” is inapplicable where a defendant is charged with multiple counts based upon the same statute.
State v. Druke 627 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Druke 627 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
The parties are bound by the terms of the plea agreement, , and it is the duty of the court to carry out the terms of the agreement.
Adamson v. Superior Court of Arizona 611 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1980
Adamson v. Superior Court of Arizona 611 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1980