Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Berryman, 875 P.2d 850.

40 citing documents.

State v. Timlick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Timlick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶11 “We examine a trial court’s findings of fact after an evidentiary hearing to determine if they are clearly erroneous.”
State v. Preston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Preston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(requiring defendant to show a “reasonable likelihood that a motion [] would have succeeded” to show prejudice from ineffective assistance of counsel).
State v. Baldonado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Baldonado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Micalizzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Micalizzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(finding of fact cannot be clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it, even though substantial conflicting evidence also exists) (citing Moore v. Title Ins.
State v. Lawson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Lawson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Garcia Del Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Garcia Del Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(citing Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986)).4 ¶14 Absent an applicable exception, evidence seized in a warrantless search is suppressed.
State v. Douglas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Douglas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Lowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“We examine a trial court’s findings of fact after an evidentiary hearing to determine if they are clearly erroneous.”
State v. Lamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Lamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“We examine a trial court’s findings of fact after an evidentiary hearing to determine if they are clearly erroneous.” (citation omitted).
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Murphy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Murphy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(citing Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986)).
Roosevelt Arthur Williams v. State of Arizona 303 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Roosevelt Arthur Williams v. State of Arizona 303 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
citing Moore v. Title Ins.
State v. Tarkington 187 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Tarkington 187 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
This court has suggested that a defendant could challenge a search based on "an interest in seized property.”
State of Arizona v. Seymour Jameel Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Seymour Jameel Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
P.2d 850 (App. 1994) (statutory exception for inoperable weapons deemed affirmative defense).
In Re Roy L. 4 P.3d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Roy L. 4 P.3d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Young 965 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Young 965 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by