Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Donald, 10 P.3d 1193.

314 citing documents.

State v. Duke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 21 (App. 2000) (“To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the defendant’s challenge must consist of more than conclusory assertions .
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“To establish deficient performance during plea negotiations, a petitioner must prove that the lawyer either (1) gave erroneous advice or (2) failed to give information necessary to allow the petitioner to make an informed decision whether to accept the plea.” ¶ 16
State v. Sales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Sales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
1 P.3d 1193 (App. 2000).
State v. Badertscher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Badertscher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Badertscher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The State made a plea offer that Badertscher rejected at a
State v. Badertscher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶3 In the new case, after pretrial disclosure and motion practice, and a plea offer that Badertscher rejected at a a four-day jury trial took place in January 2016.
State v. Soto-Portillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Soto-Portillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Accordingly, to state a colorable claim, the petitioner “must provide specific factual allegations that, if true, would entitle him to relief.” ¶ 17 (App. 2000).
State v. Osuna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Osuna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Villela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Villela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Donald Hearing ¶16 On October 3, 2014, the trial court held a ¶ 9, to explain the range of sentence that could be imposed if Appellant refused the State’s plea offer.6 Appellant rejected the plea offer and exercised his right to a jury trial.
State v. Osuna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Osuna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 14, (citations omitted).
State ex rel. Polk v. Campbell 357 P.3d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State ex rel. Polk v. Campbell 357 P.3d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
the State asserts that because no plea deal had been offered the hearing was merely a presentence hearing.
State v. Wilenchik Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Wilenchik Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Although the State offered Wilenchik a plea agreement, after a P.3d 1193 (App. 2000), Wilenchik rejected the plea.
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶¶ 14-17, 1 ¶5 Lopez may, however, be able to seek habeas corpus relief in federal court based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel if he can first show either he had no counsel in his first post-conviction relief proceeding or counsel in his first post-convictio
State v. Gingerich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Russell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Russell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶¶ 14-17, 2 Therefore, Frye and Lafler are not significant changes in the law as applied in Arizona.
State v. Gingerich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶7 Although there is no constitutional right to a plea agreement, “once the State engages in plea bargaining, the defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to be adequately informed of the consequences before deciding whether to accept or reject the offer.” ¶ 14
State v. Meacham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Meacham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶¶ 14-17, 1 ¶5 We deny relief.
State v. Simmons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Simmons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“To warrant reversal, the prosecutorial misconduct must be ‘so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere of the trial.’” 402, 132 4 P.3d 1193 (App. 2000) (requiring an on-the-record determination that a defendant has been advised of any proposed plea agreements).
State v. Van Keuren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Van Keuren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. 2 ¶¶ 14-17 (App. 2000).
State v. Hon. miles/wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hon. miles/wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
MILES/WRIGHT Decision of the Court ¶14 ¶ 39, “[i]t is well established [] that the courts may intervene to reinstate a plea offer that the State has withdrawn for vindictive reasons.” Wright further asserts that under Donald, a “court’s essential function is to provide a remedy in the context of an individual case, and
State v. Robledo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nardi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Robledo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nardi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶¶ 14-17, rev. denied (March 20, 2001), cert.
State v. Laakmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014