Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rosario, 987 P.2d 226.

137 citing documents.

State v. Neese 366 P.3d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Neese 366 P.3d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Osuna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Osuna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The petitioner has the burden to show ineffective assistance of counsel, and “the showing must be that of a provable reality, not mere speculation.” ¶ 23
In Re Nicholas L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In Re Nicholas L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Weatherford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Weatherford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“[T]he showing must be that of a provable reality, not mere speculation.” ¶ 23 (App. 1999).
State v. Patron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Patron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶35 “Courts have power to impose sentences only as authorized by statutes and within the limits set down by the legislature.” ¶ 27
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Courts have [the] power to impose sentences only as authorized by statutes and within the limits set down by the legislature.” ¶ 27, ( ).
State v. Vidovic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Vidovic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 23, (noting burden to show an ineffective assistance of counsel claim “is on the petitioner and the showing must be that of a provable reality, not mere speculation”).
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
§ 13-708(A) refers to release from prison on “parole” and ”community supervision,” and the trial court used the term “parole” at sentencing, the legislature eliminated the possibility for parole from prison for crimes committed after January 1, 1994, and replaced it with eligibility for “community supervision.” ¶ 26
State of Arizona v. Victor Kyle Lizardi 323 P.3d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Victor Kyle Lizardi 323 P.3d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman, Jr. 324 P.3d 851 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman, Jr. 324 P.3d 851 Ariz. 2014
See, ¶ 8, (noting that defendant’s “sentence was pronounced on December 16, 1994, thus marking the beginning of the ninety-day period”); (considering only date of sentencing to find notice untimely); compare Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Montgomery 312 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Montgomery 312 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Over fourteen years ago, , that the time for filing a notice of appeal in a criminal case runs from the date of sentencing.
State of Arizona v. Craig Michael Stefanovich 302 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Craig Michael Stefanovich 302 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
at 296, 798 P.2d at 1305, quoting Crowder, 155 Ariz. at 6 481, 747 P.2d at 1180; ¶¶ 24-28 & 28, (determining plea involuntary if defendant “based his decision to plead to the offenses based upon his [mistaken] belief that he could be paroled at one-half of his incarceration terms”).
State of Arizona v. Rey David Villegas 281 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rey David Villegas 281 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
s when he entered his plea, but that “his lack of knowledge was relevant and material to the making of the plea agreement.” ¶¶ 19-20, (remand for evidentiary hearing on whether failure to inform defendant of community supervision rendered plea 5 involuntary); ¶¶ 24-25, 28, (evidentiary hearing required on whether decision to plead guilty based on misinformation of release eligibility found in plea agreement and court’s colloquy); Ariz. R. Crim.
STATE EX REL. GODDARD v. Ochoa 228 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
STATE EX REL. GODDARD v. Ochoa 228 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Arizona applies the prison mailbox rule to pro se prisoners filing a notice of appeal, , a petition for post-conviction relief, ¶ 10 , and a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court, ¶ 13
Lee v. State 182 P.3d 1169 Ariz. 2008
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(claim for post-conviction relief must be based on “a provable reality, not mere speculation”).
State v. Goracke 106 P.3d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Goracke 106 P.3d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005