Cited by

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

276 citing documents.

State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wiggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
modified on other grounds, P.2d 118 (1990); -78, -39 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Wiggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Rojo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Rojo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-78, 3 STATE v. ROJO Decision of the Court -39 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P.2d 236 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Espino-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Harwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Espino-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Harwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mammoth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mammoth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Id.; (denying relief upon review of the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief where petitioner failed to meet the “heavy burden in showing the court why the non-compliance [with the timelines set forth in Rule 32.9] should be excused”) (
State v. Manygoats Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Manygoats Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
modified on other grounds, P.2d 118 (1990); -78, -39 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Sovero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sovero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See, -78 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Valdespino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Valdespino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); –78 (App. 1991); ¶ 41 (App. 2007); (both holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceedin
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Barela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Barela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
–78 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶4 Williams’ motion for rehearing “failed to allege or set forth any evidence that noncompliance with the applicable rule was excusable.”
State v. Hutchinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hutchinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Id.; (denying relief upon review of the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief where petitioner failed to meet the “heavy burden in showing the court why the non-compliance [with the timelines set forth in Rule 32.9] should be excused”) (); see also St
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); –78 (App. 1991); ¶ 41 (App. 2007); (both holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-78, -39 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(denying relief upon review of the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief where petitioner failed to meet the “heavy burden in showing the court why the non-compliance [with the timelines set forth in Rule 32.9] should be excused”) ().
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); -78 (App. 1991)
State v. House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); –78 (App. 1991); (holding that fundamental error review does not apply in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Pittman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Pittman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-78, -39 (App. 1991); approved as modified, 164 Ariz. 1 Pittman raised additional issues below that he does not present for review.
State v. Harmon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Harmon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Keeten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Keeten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
–78 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Bragna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bragna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); (declining to address new arguments presented in a motion for rehearing after the court issued its original ruling on the petition for post-conviction relief); (same); (holding review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding is not required); ¶¶ 40-41 (App. 2007) (same).
State v. Parks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016