Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Guytan, 968 P.2d 587.

67 citing documents.

Finchem v. Fontes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Finchem v. Fontes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. On-Auk-Mor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. On-Auk-Mor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(holding the court cannot consider issues raised for the first time on appeal); ¶ 15 (App. 1998) (holding an issue raised for the first time in the reply brief is waived); ¶ 14 (App. 2012) (“A party who fails to respond to a motion for summary judgment .
Wiltse v. Wiltse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Wiltse v. Wiltse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Emedi 484 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Emedi 484 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Hill, 528 U.S. at 115 (citing cases for the rights to pursue arguments, raise evidentiary objections, and enter stipulations regarding evidence); ¶¶ 26-27 (App. 1998) (right to be present); Hill, 528 U.S. at 115–16 (waiver of speedy trial rights); Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242, 249–50 (2008) (right to allow magistrate judge to preside over voir dire).
State v. Tran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Tran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“Generally an issue raised for the first time in a reply brief is waived.”).
State v. Kavu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Kavu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 15 (App. 1998) (holding issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived).
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 15 (App. 1998); see also Moody, 208 Ariz. at 452 ¶ 101 n.9.
State v. Whatley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Whatley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State of Arizona v. Donald Wayne Dalton 385 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Donald Wayne Dalton 385 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2016
¶5 In a split decision, P.2d 587 (App. 1998), the court of appeals vacated Dalton’s conviction and sentence and remanded for a new trial.
State of Arizona v. Knute Eckhard Kolmann 367 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Knute Eckhard Kolmann 367 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2016
¶ 17 & n.4, (noting that “[i]t is not good practice” for trial counsel to waive defendant’s presence without consulting defendant “when issues of substance are before the court,” but harmless-error analysis applies to defendant’s absence during juror substitution).
State v. Dalton 366 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dalton 366 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 8 , this court explained the inherent problems when a new juror joins deliberations that have already begun: Where an alternate juror is inserted into a deliberative process in which some jurors may have formed opinions regarding the defendant’s guilt or innocence, there is a real danger that th
J.S., E.K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
J.S., E.K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A)-(B) (requiring an appellant to support contentions on appeal with reasons, citations to legal authority, and references to the record); ¶ 15, (recognizing that arguments not raised in an opening brief are waived).
Gilberto R. v. Maria B., E.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Gilberto R. v. Maria B., E.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
By failing to contest the finding of abandonment on appeal, Father has waived this issue, ¶ 15, (arguments not raised in an opening brief are waived), and nothing in our review of the record indicates the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding abandonment.
Villa v. Furar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Villa v. Furar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See State v. Guytan, 192 11 VILLA v. FURAR Decision of the Court Ariz. 514, 520, ¶ 15, (issues not raised in the opening brief are waived).6 IV.
Meritage v. Bingham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Meritage v. Bingham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
n.9 ¶ 101, n.9 (2004) (noting failure to assert an argument in an opening brief on appeal “usually constitutes abandonment and waiver of that claim”); ¶ 15
State of Arizona v. Glenda Lorraine Rumsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Glenda Lorraine Rumsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
P. 31.13(c)(1)(vi); (arguments first raised in reply brief waived); n.1, n.1 (App. 1988) (claim waived when supported by inadequate argument).
State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
See Benak, 18 P.3d at 130-31; -96.
SULAVKA v. State 221 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
SULAVKA v. State 221 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 15 , (refusing to consider arguments made for the first time in a reply brief).
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 15 , (arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief are waived).
State v. Martinez 212 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Martinez 212 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶¶ 19-20 , , , (arguments raised for first time in reply brief waived).
State of Arizona v. Robert Michael Hollenback Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Robert Michael Hollenback Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
¶10 Hollenback’s P.2d 587 (App. 1998), to support his lack of notice argument is misplaced.
State of Arizona v. Renee Sue Ruggiero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Renee Sue Ruggiero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Although the Vira-montes court noted in dictum that it was not required to follow the court of appeals’ , , it did *89 not overrule them.
Long v. City of Glendale 93 P.3d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Long v. City of Glendale 93 P.3d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 4 , ¶ 15 , (citation omitted).
Parent v. McClennen 80 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Parent v. McClennen 80 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
¶ 10 -23, ¶ 32 , -96 (App. 1998), the State alleged gang motivation to enhance the defendant’s possible punishment after the jury had been empaneled and jeopardy attached.