Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Whipple, 866 P.2d 1358.

152 citing documents.

State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(when superior court rules "in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution[,] [n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court's correct ruling in [the] written decision").
State v. Wages Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wages Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(holding when superior court rules “in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution[, n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court's correct ruling in [the] written decision”).
State v. Korelc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Korelc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(when superior court rules "in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution[,]" there is no purpose in "rehashing the trial court's correct ruling").
State v. Najera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Fritz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Najera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(holding that, when the trial court rules “in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution[, n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court’s correct ruling in [the] written decision”).
State v. Fritz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Under these circumstances, “[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court’s correct ruling in a written decision.”
State v. Orduno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Orduno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(when superior court rules “in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution[,] [n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court's correct ruling in [the] written decision”).
State v. Branch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Branch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(holding when superior court rules “in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution[, n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the superior court's correct ruling in [the] written decision”).
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(holding when superior court rules “in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution[, n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court's correct ruling in [the] written decision”).
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Orbin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Orbin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(holding that when the trial court rules “in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution[, n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court’s correct ruling in [the] written decision”).
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Under these circumstances, “[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court’s correct ruling in a written decision.”
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ortloff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ortloff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶4 We have reviewed the claims raised by Ortloff in his petition for post-conviction relief and the trial court’s ruling and conclude the trial court thoroughly addressed and correctly resolved the claims in a manner “that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution.”
State v. McGill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. McGill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
2 STATE v. BROWN Decision of the Court ¶6 In any event, we have reviewed Brown’s claims and the trial court’s ruling and conclude the court thoroughly addressed and correctly rejected the claims in a manner “that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution.”
State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Adolf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Adolf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(holding when trial court has clearly 2 STATE v. ADOLF Decision of the Court identified and correctly ruled upon each issue raised in a petition for post- conviction relief “in a fash
State v. Soto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Soto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Xavier R. and Athena R. v. Ades and Joseph R. 280 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Xavier R. and Athena R. v. Ades and Joseph R. 280 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Jacob T. Osterkamp v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Jacob T. Osterkamp v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
§ 13-4033(A) (identifying orders from which defendant in criminal action may seek direct appeal as matter of right); & n.4, & n.4 (App. 1993) (citing Rule 32.9(f) and noting review of order in post-conviction proceeding by appellate court discretionary).
State v. SANG LE 212 P.3d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. SANG LE 212 P.3d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
P. 32.9(f); , 274 & n.4, , 1360 & n.4 (App.1993) (noting discretionary power of appellate court to deny review of petition for review).
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Febles 115 P.3d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Febles 115 P.3d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Jesus M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 53 P.3d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Jesus M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 53 P.3d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Ray 912 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Ray 912 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(explaining that where each issue raised in a petition for post-conviction relief has been clearly identified and correctly ruled upon, no useful purpose is served by rehashing the issues on appellate review).
State v. Smith 904 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Smith 904 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
273 n. 3, , 1359 n. 3 (App.1993).