Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Sasak, 871 P.2d 729.

42 citing documents.

State v. Pacheco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Pacheco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Because the superior court held an evidentiary hearing, our review of the court’s factual findings “is limited to a determination of whether those findings are clearly erroneous.”
State v. Timlick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Timlick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Becker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Becker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(appellate court defers to trial court in resolving conflicts in evidence in post-conviction proceedings).
State v. Vicera-Popoca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Vicera-Popoca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 97 (2000) (explaining the superior court “is in the best position to evaluate credibility and accuracy, as well as draw inferences, weigh, and balance”) (quotation and citation omitted); (“It is the duty of the [superior] court to resolve any conflicts in the evidence, and where the [superior] court’s ruling is based on substantial evidence, this court will affirm.”); (“The [superior] court is the sole arbitrator of the credibility of wit
State v. Alvarez Bojorquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Alvarez Bojorquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
to evaluate [the defendant’s] demeanor.” see also Fatty, 150 Ariz. at 592 (rejecting argument that sentencing court “gave insufficient consideration” to defendant’s remorse and noting that “the trial court is in the best position to consider whether or not expressed remorse is sincere”).
State v. King 480 P.3d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. King 480 P.3d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Lawson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Lawson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. McCall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. McCall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
–87 (App. 1993) (–97 (1992), ¶ 25 (2001)).
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Cervantez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cervantez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wyatt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wyatt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Flake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Flake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Verdugo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Verdugo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
After an evidentiary hearing, our review of the trial court’s factual findings “is limited to a determination of whether those findings are clearly erroneous.”
State v. Parks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
After an evidentiary hearing, our review of the trial court’s factual findings “is limited to a determination of whether those findings are clearly erroneous.”
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
After an evidentiary hearing, our review of the court’s factual findings “is limited to a determination of whether those findings are clearly erroneous.”
State v. Andrada-Pastrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Andrada-Pastrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Santos Barajas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Santos Barajas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
2 STATE v. SANTOS BARAJAS Decision of the Court erroneous.” ( ).
State of Arizona v. Rey David Villegas 281 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rey David Villegas 281 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
See Crowder, 155 Ariz. at 481-82, 747 P.2d at 1180-81 (restitution amount likely irrelevant to plea decision given “possible fate that awaited defendant, and the advantageous plea offered”; where defendant would not have refused any reasonable plea bargain, lack of knowledge “seems quite inconsequential”); 733 (App. 1993) (review of trial court’s factual findings after Rule 32 evidentiary hearing limited to “determination of whether those findings are clearly erroneous”).
State v. Bowers 966 P.2d 1023 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Bowers 966 P.2d 1023 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(defendant must show that restitution amount was actually relevant to decision to plead in potential capital ease); , (defendant failed to show that prosecutor’s promise not to recommend consecutive sentences was material to plea decision).