Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Settle, 512 P.2d 46.

40 citing documents.

State v. Vita Lashona Flowers 768 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Vita Lashona Flowers 768 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Reidhead 731 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Reidhead 731 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Jenson 597 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Jenson 597 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
See, e. g., , Rule 27, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
State v. Rivera 569 P.2d 1347 Ariz. 1977
State v. Rivera 569 P.2d 1347 Ariz. 1977
1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973)
State v. Tubbs 568 P.2d 1144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Tubbs 568 P.2d 1144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
The right to a written notice of a , in which we followed the law as set forth in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 , 93 S.Ct.
State v. Turnbull 560 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Turnbull 560 P.2d 807 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)
State v. Espinoza 555 P.2d 318 Ariz. 1976
State v. Espinoza 555 P.2d 318 Ariz. 1976
State v. Baylis 553 P.2d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Baylis 553 P.2d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973); , and Rule 27.7, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure (1973), a probationer is entitled to three judicial proceedings before his probation can be revoked.
State v. Zajac 550 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Zajac 550 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973)
State v. Jameson 541 P.2d 912 Ariz. 1975
State v. Jameson 541 P.2d 912 Ariz. 1975
2593 , 33 L. Ed.2d 484 (1972)
State v. Gray 538 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Gray 538 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
In support of this position, defendant cites Rule 26.7, Rules of Criminal Procedure
State v. Brown 532 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Brown 532 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
In this Court’s , we set forth a suggested procedure which would accommodate the probation revocation requirements of our Rule 27 with these two United States Supreme Court decisions, resulting in a two-stage bifurcated hearing in the trial court with detailed procedural requirements before probation could be revok
State v. Salinas 532 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Salinas 532 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973); , State v. Patricella, 20 Ariz.App.
Keller v. Superior Court in & for Cty. of Maricopa 524 P.2d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Keller v. Superior Court in & for Cty. of Maricopa 524 P.2d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
However, the State urges that recently imposed time-consuming probation revocation procedures require a departure from, and relaxation of, the prior law in this area, , and Rule 27, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
State v. Vasquez 523 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Vasquez 523 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 , decided 14 May 1973, , , decided 12 July 1973.
State v. Rahe 522 P.2d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Rahe 522 P.2d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, held that Gagnon does not apply retroactively.
State v. Magallanes 517 P.2d 505 Ariz. 1973
State v. Magallanes 517 P.2d 505 Ariz. 1973
State v. Griggs 515 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Griggs 515 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Patricella 512 P.2d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Patricella 512 P.2d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Since Department A of this court has adequately set forth the procedures now *337 , it is unnecessary for us to repeat those procedures here for the edification of the bench and bar.
State v. Williams 512 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Williams 512 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973