DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rogers, 407 P.2d 773.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Wiley 16 P.3d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Wiley 16 P.3d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    overruled on other grounds by State v. Mallory, 19 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Hursey 861 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Hursey 861 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1993
    294 P. 1118 (1931); , overruled on other grounds, State v. Mallory, 19 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Mallory 504 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Mallory 504 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Bollander 484 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Bollander 484 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Robinson 452 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Robinson 452 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    Defendant’s counsel cites us to many cases, including State v. Kuhnley, supra
  • State v. Butler 450 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Butler 450 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    State v. Betts, 5 Ariz.App.
  • State v. McCormick 442 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Followed State v. McCormick 442 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Kelley 434 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Kelley 434 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    State v. Anders, 1 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Betts 425 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Betts 425 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    It was reversible error for the court to hold that the plea of guilty to the original information stood in relation to the amended information and, therefore, the court was without jurisdiction to pass sentence based upon the amended information.” 236
  • State v. Stewart 412 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • State v. Stewart 412 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    The Attorney General has confessed error, and although we are not bound by a confession of error in a criminal case, , we agree with the Attorney General’s position.
  • State v. Percharo 412 P.2d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • State v. Percharo 412 P.2d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    we stated that, “This Court is not bound by a confession of error in a criminal case and it has undertaken to examine the record.” This we have done in the case now before us. In Thornton, we stated: “The law is now well established that regardless of the fact of advice and the fact of knowledge
  • Peterson v. Jacobson 411 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • Peterson v. Jacobson 411 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    See State v. Rogers, 2 Ariz.App.-, wherein Division One of this Court held that the lower court was without jurisdiction to pass sentence based upon an amended information.
  • State v. Martin 410 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Martin 410 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    which held: “ * * * that where an amended information is filed as distinguished from an amendment to an information * * the defendant must be rearraigned on the amended information.” That case, however, involved a plea of guilty to the original information, which was defective, and the fili