Cited by

¶12 Pena argues that by imposing an enhanced sentence based on an allegation that was not filed until the trial was underway, the court violated his right “to know before trial the full extent of the potential punishment that he faced.” Id.

¶18 Here, the court denied the request to enhance Wright’s for the proposition that timely allegations for an enhanced sentence were required.

¶ 15 (App. 1998) (citing cases).

(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 .

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).

(“Generally an issue raised for the first time in a reply brief is waived.”).

¶ 15 (App. 1998) (holding issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived).

¶ 15 (App. 1998); see also Moody, 208 Ariz. at 452 ¶ 101 n.9.

¶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.

¶ 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).

¶ 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

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).

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.

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.

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

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).

See Benak, 18 P.3d at 130-31; -96.

¶ 15 , (refusing to consider arguments made for the first time in a reply brief).

¶ 15 , (arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief are waived).

¶¶ 19-20 , , , (arguments raised for first time in reply brief waived).

¶10 Hollenback’s P.2d 587 (App. 1998), to support his lack of notice argument is misplaced.

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.