Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ramirez, 616 P.2d 924.

257 citing documents.

State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Flake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Espino-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Harwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Espino-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Harwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Flake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Burns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Burns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Peve Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Peve 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. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
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. Barela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Barela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
–78 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In effect, Williams introduced “new matters not raised in the first petition,” and “a court will not entertain new matters raised for the first time in a motion for rehearing.” Bortz, 169 Ariz. at 577 (); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. James Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. James Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (limiting the petition for review to “issues which were decided by the trial court and which the defendant wishes to present to the appellate court for review”); -74, ¶ 8 (App. 2014) (
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramirez 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. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-78, -39 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); -78 (App. 1991)
State v. Pittman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Pittman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
2 STATE v. PITTMAN Decision of the Court 485, -68, -28 (App. 1980); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Apodaca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Apodaca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Moreover, Apodaca does not identify any relevant changes to Rule 3.8 or how those changes have any application to his case.1 Second, filing and successfully arguing a motion in limine does not constitute prosecutorial misconduct; nor does unsuccessfully contesting that motion constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.2 (“To show ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner .
State v. Harmon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Harmon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Keeten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Keeten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
–78 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Bragna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bragna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); (declining to address new arguments presented in a motion for rehearing after the court issued its original ruling on the petition for post-conviction relief); (same); (holding review for fundamental error in
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by