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. Mendiola, 532 P.2d 193.

52 citing documents.

  • State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    2 STATE v. REED Decision of the Court At best, Reed may have a claim for technical error, which does not entitle him to have his plea or sentence set aside if “substantial justice has been done.” (quoting Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 27).
  • State v. Johnson 890 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Johnson 890 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    -95 , -67 (1975); -54, -96 (1975), approved and adopted in
  • State v. Draper 784 P.2d 259 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Draper 784 P.2d 259 Ariz. 1989
    The prosecutor and defense counsel have “an affirmative duty to assist the Court to the end that the appropriate procedural requirements are met.” , , aff'd, , , (“if counsel knows of any reason or circumstance that might impugn the validity of a plea, he should call the matter to the attention of the court prior to the taking of th
  • State v. Draper 762 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Draper 762 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Ybarra 716 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Ybarra 716 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Dowd 679 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Dowd 679 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Laughter 625 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Laughter 625 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Junkin 599 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Junkin 599 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Diaz 588 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Diaz 588 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Jovenal 573 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Jovenal 573 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Snodgrass 570 P.2d 1280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Snodgrass 570 P.2d 1280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    adopted and approved as the opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court, , .
  • State v. Youtsey 570 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Youtsey 570 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Sutton 565 P.2d 1278 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Sutton 565 P.2d 1278 Ariz. 1977
    17 A.R.S., Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 21.3(c)
  • State v. Dorsey 564 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Dorsey 564 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    P.2d 665 (1975); , adopted
  • State v. Cornwall 562 P.2d 723 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Cornwall 562 P.2d 723 Ariz. 1977
    W]hen a plea bargain has been reached and counsel for both the state and the defendant are present in Court for the purpose of consummating that agreement by obtaining the Court’s acceptance of the bargained-for guilty plea, counsel for both the state and the defendant have an affirmative duty to assist the Court to the end that the appropriate procedural requirements are met.” , aff’d
  • State v. Ray 560 P.2d 1287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Ray 560 P.2d 1287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    See Constitution of Arizona, Art. 6, § 27; , , approved and adopted as the opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court
  • State v. Coon 559 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Coon 559 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Pritchett 558 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Pritchett 558 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
  • State v. Morris 549 P.2d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Morris 549 P.2d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    approving our opinion in
  • State v. Roberts 545 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Roberts 545 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    adopted as opinion by the Supreme Court, , .
  • State v. Goff 542 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Goff 542 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    824 , 17 L. Ed.2d 705 (1967); , , affirmed Ariz.
  • State v. Mendiola 540 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Rodriguez 540 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Mendiola 540 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1975
    The opinion of the Court of Appeals as reported in , is approved and adopted as the opinion of this court.
  • State v. Rodriguez 540 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1975
    Because there is evidence in the record that reveals a factual basis for the plea, , in which the court stated: “Article 6, § 27 of the Arizona Constition provides as follows: ‘No cause shall be reversed for technical error in pleadings or proceedings when upon the whose case it shall appear that substantial justice has been done.’ “Here, appellant does not urge that there was n
  • State v. Salas 532 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Salas 532 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    State v. Bates, 22 Ariz.App.