Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Sainz, 924 P.2d 474.

30 citing documents.

State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“outline[s]” remand as the “appropriate process,” and points also to the remand for factfinding that occurred in Cook.
State v. Edgemon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
P. 9.1; –39 ¶ 3 (App. 1999)
State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State of Arizona v. Steven Ricardo Vallejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Steven Ricardo Vallejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
rocedure, a court “may infer that a defendant’s absence is voluntary if the defendant had actual notice of the date and time of the proceeding, notice of the right to be present, and notice that the proceeding would go forward in the defendant’s absence.” That inference, however, is rebuttable where “subsequently discovered facts show that a defendant’s absence was not voluntary.”
State of Arizona v. Analysya Contreras 557 P.3d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Analysya Contreras 557 P.3d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Instead, to assert that the trial court was required to inquire whether her absence was truly voluntary.
State v. Rowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Rowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(in determining whether a defendant’s absence is voluntary or involuntary, the superior court must consider all the facts presented to it on the issue); see 7 STATE v. ROWAN Decision of the Court also R
State v. Riggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Riggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
P. 9.1; –39, ¶ 3 (App. 1999)
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
e superior court to infer a defendant’s absence is voluntary if the defendant had “personal notice of (1) the time of the proceeding, (2) the right to be present 3 STATE v. JONES Decision of the Court at it, and (3) a warning that the proceeding would go forward in his or her absence.”
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶12 Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.1 authorizes the superior court to infer a defendant’s absence is voluntary when “the defendant had personal notice of (1) the time of the proceeding, (2) the right to be present at it, and (3) a warning that the proceeding would go forward in his or her absence.”
State v. Dillion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Dillion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Mazzola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mazzola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(under “Rule 9.1, the trial court must, if asked, determine whether the defendant’s absence was, in fact, voluntary.”).
State v. Puccini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Puccini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
P. 9.1; -78 (App. 1996).
State v. Ashmeade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ashmeade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
P. 9.1; n.2, n.2 (App. 1996).
State v. Walker 95 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Walker 95 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Rather, we held that a trial court cannot ignore “the uncontroverted fact that defendant was unable to attend the commencement of trial because of his confinement in jail” and cannot “ignore the reality of the situation and adhere to the limited facts known to the trial court at the time of the defendant’s absence.”
State v. Reed 992 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Reed 992 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
(no error in proceeding with trial when trial court unaware defendant had been arrested and was in custody).
State v. Garcia-Contreras 953 P.2d 536 Ariz. 1998
State v. Garcia-Contreras 953 P.2d 536 Ariz. 1998
Rule 9.1, Ariz. R.Crim.P.