DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rodgers, 655 P.2d 1348.

39 citing documents.

  • State v. Olivas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Olivas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    –13 (App. 1986) (finding an informant was sufficiently trustworthy because providing the information would not deflect all the blame and the informant would not profit from lying); (indicating statements made against a speaker’s interests lend credibility to her assertions).
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State of Arizona v. George Anthony Dominguez Jr. 338 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. George Anthony Dominguez Jr. 338 P.3d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    P., requires arguments and supporting authorities to be provided in the body of an opening brief, incorporation by reference is forbidden
  • State of Arizona v. Angel Antonio Perez 308 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Angel Antonio Perez 308 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    We “will not disturb the court’s ruling absent a clear showing of prejudice.”
  • State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    To satisfy those concerns and allow a defendant to decide whether to accept a plea, the “„defendant should know the full extent of the potential punishment that he faces before trial.‟” -39, -22 (1985)
  • State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    § 13 — 604(P) (a prior felony conviction to be used to enhance sentence as a repetitive offender must be “charged in the indictment or information and admitted or found by the court”); -06 , -58 (App.1982) (State must allege before trial prior convictions for sentencing enhancement).
  • State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    of incorporating arguments at trial by reference in the brief on appeal____”
  • State Ex Rel. Smith v. Conn 98 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State Ex Rel. Smith v. Conn 98 P.3d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    at 239, 697 P.2d at 322 ( , ).
  • State of Arizona v. Mark Anthony Cons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State v. Cons 94 P.3d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State of Arizona v. Mark Anthony Cons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    must be such that the defendant is not ‘misled, surprised or deceived in any way by the allegations’ of prior convictions.”); (allegations of prior convictions must be made before trial to give defendant notice of potential enhancement); see also § 13-604(P) (prescribing statutory procedures for notifying defendant that state seeks enhanced penalty).
  • State v. Cons 94 P.3d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    must be such that the defendant is not ‘misled, surprised or deceived in any way by the allegations’ of prior convictions.”); , (allegations of prior convictions must be made before trial to give defendant notice of potential enhancement); see also § 13-604(P) (prescribing statutory procedures for notifying defendant that state seeks enhanced penalty).
  • State v. Hensley 31 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Benak 18 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Benak 18 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    (holding that all allegations of prior convictions must be made before trial).
  • State v. Guytan 968 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Guytan 968 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Doody 930 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Martinez 837 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Martinez 837 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    (jury is proper body to determine fact of prior conviction); , (priors must be alleged before trial); , (prior conviction must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt).
  • State v. Coats 797 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Coats 797 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Williams 698 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Waggoner 697 P.2d 320 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Waggoner 697 P.2d 320 Ariz. 1985
    Also, , “[a]s a policy matter the defendant should know the full extent of the potential punishment that he faces before trial.” We believe that a defendant must receive notice before trial commences that the state intends to allege his release status to enhance punishment pursuant to A
  • State v. Gillies 691 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Gillies 691 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Cornejo 677 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Cornejo 677 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983