Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Mendoza, 891 P.2d 939.

25 citing documents.

Waller v. Sagmit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Riehle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶9 “It is the defendant’s duty, as the party seeking relief, to prepare the record in such a manner as to allow the appellate court to pass upon the questions raised on appeal.”
State v. Watson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Long Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Long Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Tejeda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Tejeda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Hester Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Cassise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cassise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
at 13, ¶ 30 (citations omitted); (holding an issue raised for the first time in a post-trial motion preserves only fundamental error review).
State v. Derienzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Derienzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Paez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Paez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Morgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Morgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 212 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re MH 2007-001895 212 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re MH 2007-001895 212 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Under Arizona law, the “determination whether an interpreter is qualified is one left to the sound discretion of the trial court.”
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 212 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by