Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Jimenez, 935 P.2d 920.

30 citing documents.

State v. Truvillion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Rule 27.9; Rule 33.1; –44 (App. 1996).
State of Arizona v. Bobby Charles Purcell 526 P.3d 146 Ariz. 2023
State of Arizona v. Bobby Charles Purcell 526 P.3d 146 Ariz. 2023
¶20 for the proposition that a defendant may not circumvent the PCR process through a direct appeal.
State v. Crain 512 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Crain 512 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Although the State properly moved to modify Crain’s sentence within 60 days, see Rule 24.3(a), an order denying a Rule 24.3 motion does not modify the sentence and in turn does not affect the State’s substantial rights, ¶ 7 n.4 (App. 2017).
State v. Redzinak 422 P.3d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Redzinak 422 P.3d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
P. 32.1 (permitting of-right proceeding by defendant "who had an automatic probation violation based on a plea of guilty or no contest"); State v. Jimenez , , 345, , 923 (App. 1996) (assuming modification of probation appealable, pursuant to A.R.S.
State v. Lejman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Lejman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 13-4033(A)(3); (holding the denial of a motion to modify terms of a defendant’s probation is not an order affecting the substantial rights of the defendant) (-27 (App. 1993), ).
Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. State of Arizona 332 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. State of Arizona 332 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
-45 , -23 (App.1996); see also AR.S.
Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state 295 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2013
Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state 295 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2013
See, ¶¶ 5-6, (noting that § 13-4033(B) precludes direct appeal of post-judgment order requiring defendant to continue sex offender registration because registration was contemplated in plea agreement); -45, -23 (App. 1996) (stating that § 13-4033(B) prohibited pleading defendant from directly appealing denial of motion to modify conditions of probation imposed at sentencing).
Alex Paul Rasmussen v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Alex Paul Rasmussen v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
§ 13-4033 (enumerating and limiting appealable orders); (denial of motion to modify probation conditions not appealable).
State v. Regenold 249 P.3d 337 Ariz. 2011
State of Arizona v. John George Ponsart Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. John George Ponsart Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Patrick James Soriano 176 P.3d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Patrick James Soriano 176 P.3d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Armando D. Rodriguez-Gonzales Hieber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Rodriguez-Gonzales 92 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Armando D. Rodriguez-Gonzales Hieber Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
judgment or sentence that is entered pursuant to a plea agreement or an adm ission to a pro bation violation.” Accordingly, any right of appeal appellants have under subsection (A)(2) or (A)(3) “is restricted by subsection (B), which precludes a direct appeal from a judgment or sentence entered pursuant to a plea agreement.” 3 4, see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Rodriguez-Gonzales 92 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
“[i]n noncapital cases a defendant may not appeal from a judgment or sentence that is entered pursuant to a plea agreement or an admission to a probation violation.” Accordingly, any right of appeal appellants have under subsection (A)(2) or (A)(3) “is restricted by subsection (B), which precludes a direct appeal from a judgment or sentence entered pursuant to a plea agreement.” , see also Ariz. R.Crim.
Montero v. Foreman 64 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Montero v. Foreman 64 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Fisher v. Kaufman 38 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Fisher v. Kaufman 38 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Delgarito 938 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Delgarito 938 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
we assumed that a right of appeal exists if the trial court alters the judgment or a defendant’s sentence.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by