Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bortz, 821 P.2d 236.

276 citing documents.

State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
P. 4 STATE v. DAVIS Cattani, J., dissenting in part 33.16(c)(4); (citing cases)
State v. Mayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Mayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-68 (App. 1980) (applying a waiver analysis to “issues first presented in a petition for review” because the superior court “obviously never” had the opportunity to meaningfully consider the alleged errors); (applying waiver to claims that could “have been previously raised” in a petition for post-conviction relief but were not 3 STATE v. MAYO Decision of the Court preserved).
State v. Lang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Lang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Timlick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Timlick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Walton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Walton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Tingue Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Tingue Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(this Court will not hear matters raised for the first time in a motion for rehearing).
State v. Longhini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Longhini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
P. 33.16(c)(2)(B); -78 (App. 1991); (holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding); ¶¶ 40-42 (App. 2007) (same).
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
P. 33.16(c)(2)(B); –78 (App. 1991); ¶ 42 (App. 2007) (noting that there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
P. 32.16(c)(2)(B); (observing that courts will not grant post-petition relief based upon matters raised subsequent to the underlying petition).
State v. Aguilar-Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Aguilar-Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
P. 32.9(c)(4)(B); (“The law is clear that a court will not entertain new matters raised for the first time in a motion for rehearing [on a petition for post-conviction relief].”).
State v. Getzen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Getzen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jacott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jacott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
P. 32.9(c)(4)(B); –78 (App. 1991); (holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Covarrubias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Covarrubias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
P. 32.9(c)(4)(B); ¶ 42 (App. 2007) (both holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
a statement of issues the trial court decided that the defendant is presenting for appellate review”) (emphasis added); ¶ 41 (App. 2007) (noting that there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hairston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hairston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Warner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Warner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); ¶ 41 (App. 2007) (holding that there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding).2 1 The ten-year prison sentence was the minimum sentence available for sexual exploitation of a minor.
State v. Ashpole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ashpole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); (citation omitted).
State v. Hopson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hopson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Benson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Benson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bivens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bivens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Burke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Burke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); (issues not first presented to the trial court may not be presented in the petition for review.).
State v. Brakhop Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Brakhop Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Briseno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Briseno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017