Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Garcia, 823 P.2d 693.

26 citing documents.

State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
James v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“[A] judge is required to actually weigh the factors that bear on the [prejudice].”
State v. Leota 538 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Leota 538 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“A violation of the time limits of Rule 8 does not mandate a dismissal with prejudice.
State v. Pritchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Pritchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Waits Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Waits Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Such a showing of prejudice may include that “the state delayed for the purpose of gaining a tactical advantage over [the defendant] or to harass him, and [] that he actually suffered prejudice as a result of the state’s conduct.” see also Gilbert, 172 Ariz. at 405 (reversing a dismissal with prejudice because the defendant failed to articulate how a last-minute dismissal “actually hurt her ability to defend against the charges”).
State v. Goold Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Goold Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The rule specifically “requires the trial court to make ‘a reasoned finding’ that the interests of justice require the dismissal to be with prejudice.”
State v. Simmons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Simmons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Vasko 971 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Vasko 971 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Estrada 930 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Estrada 930 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
823 P.2d *493 693, 695 (App.1991).
State v. Rasch 935 P.2d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Rasch 935 P.2d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
the defendant claimed that the state filed a motion to dismiss to delay •the case so that a critical witness would become unavailable.
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County 868 P.2d 350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County 868 P.2d 350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
However, “if the defendant can show that the state delayed for the purpose of gaining a tactical advantage over him or to harass him, and if he can show that he actually suffered prejudice as a result of the state’s conduct, a dismissal with prejudice would be justified.”
State v. Wills 870 P.2d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Wills 870 P.2d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
the mere passage of an arbitrary time limit is not sufficient to warrant dismissal of a case with prejudice.
State v. Gilbert 837 P.2d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Granados 837 P.2d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Granados 837 P.2d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Finally, , which we have filed today, we disapprove of automatically converting a dismissal without prejudice into one with prejudice by the mere lapse of an arbitrarily set period of time.
State v. Gilbert 837 P.2d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
which we have filed today, we do not believe the court’s failure to include the recitation in its order is fatal to the intent of the order.