Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Andersen, 868 P.2d 964.

26 citing documents.

State v. Gilmore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Gilmore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Calandra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Calandra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
P. 32.16(c)(2)(B) (requiring a petition for review to contain “a statement of issues the trial 5 STATE v. CALANDRA Decision of the Court court decided”); (noting that claim not raised in PCR petition is not “subject to appellate review”); ¶¶ 40-42 (App. 2007) (holding that no review for fundamental error exists in a PCR proceeding).
State v. York Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. York Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
§ 13-704(L); 3 (“The defendant’s testimony can supply the requisite admission.”).
State v. Jenkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jenkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(petition failed to present colorable claim because one requirement not established).
State v. Carson 391 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Carson 391 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
See Vassell, n.3 , 359 P.3d at 1028 n.3
State of Arizona v. Ronald Vassell 359 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald Vassell 359 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
See, (defendant not entitled to self- defense justification instruction where he did not know or suspect victim armed).
State v. Lucero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Lucero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-91, ¶ 13, -34 (App. 2000) (discussing the requirement that a defendant must have exercised due diligence for “newly discovered evidence” to result in a new trial); (recognizing that all elements must be satisfied to establish a claim of newly discovered evidence).
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer 303 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on justification when he presents the “slightest evidence” tending to prove “a hostile demonstration, which may be reasonably regarded as placing the accused apparently in imminent danger of losing h[is] life or sustaining great bodily harm.”
State v. Boyd 31 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Boyd 31 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Colosi 977 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Colosi 977 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
The rele *117 vanee of the resolution of a civil lawsuit is that it may “extinguish a defendant’s restitution obligation to the extent that the settlement compensates the victim[]____” , cert.
State v. Harvey 974 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Harvey 974 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
-99 , -44 (App.1979) (sentencing court did not abuse discretion in considering evidence of prior kidnapping/assault by defendant although assault was dismissed and kidnapping trial resulted in acquittal); -85 , -68 (App.1993) (no error in sentencing judge's consideration of potential danger to third party created by defendant’s drunkenly waving a firearm, although defendant was acquitted of aggravated assault in incident).
State v. Curry 931 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Curry 931 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
The state contends that the trial court’s , cert.
Mayer v. State 908 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Mayer v. State 908 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995