DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

322 citing documents.

  • 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Court ¶14 ¶ 39, “[i]t is well established [] that the courts may intervene to reinstate a plea offer that the State has withdrawn for vindictive reasons.”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
  • State v. Laakmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Although the State extended plea offers to Laakmann, P.3d 1193 (2000), he rejected them.
  • State v. Griffin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Griffin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Herrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Herrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    -14, ¶¶ 17, 20, -01 (App. 2000) (stating that for a defendant to obtain a hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel related to plea agreements, “a defendant must present more than a conclusory assertion that counsel failed to adequately communicate the plea offer or the consequences of convict
  • State v. Buckley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Buckley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Buckley was fully informed of the penalties if convicted and of a P.3d 1193 (App. 2000), and she rejected the plea offer.
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    § 13-706(A), arguing that the State had failed to allege the sentencing enhancement before Smith rejected the State’s plea 1 ¶ 46
  • State v. Dennis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Dennis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Powels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Powels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Powels also suggests the superior court failed to conduct a -12, 418, ¶¶ 11, 45, 1205 (App. 2000).
  • State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “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. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Grossman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Grossman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    It is well established, for example, that the courts may intervene to reinstate a plea offer that the State has withdrawn for vindictive reasons.” ¶ 39
  • State of Arizona v. Pierre Banda 307 P.3d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Pierre Banda 307 P.3d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    See State 6 v. Ysea, ¶¶ 15, 17, State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406, ¶¶ 9, 14, 1200 (App. 2000).
  • State v. Chairez 327 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State v. Chairez 327 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    “To mandate an evidentiary hearing, [a] defendant’s challenge must consist of more than conclusory assertions and be supported by more than regret.”
  • 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
    P. 32.9(c)(1)(iv) (petition for review shall contain “reasons why the petition should be granted”); (claims waived for insufficient argument on appeal); (to warrant evidentiary hearing, Rule 32 claim “must consist of more than conclusory assertions”).
  • 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
    § 13-4037(A) to modify the sentence in Gourdin, 156 Ariz. at 339, 751 P.2d at 999, a trial court also “has the power to fashion a suitable remedy” in a Rule 32 proceeding
  • Cook v. State 281 P.3d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Cook v. State 281 P.3d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    “[I]n reviewing a claim that an act by one department would usurp the powers of another,” ¶ 37 , or, in other words, whether there has been “a significant interference by one department with the operations of another department,” J.W.
  • State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz 269 P.3d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz 269 P.3d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    Pursuant to State v. Donald, “a defendant may state a claim for post- conviction relief on the basis that counsel’s ineffective assistance led the defendant to make an uninformed decision to reject a plea bargain and proceed to trial.”
  • Rivera-Longoria v. Slayton 264 P.3d 866 Ariz. 2011
  • Rivera-Longoria v. Slayton 264 P.3d 866 Ariz. 2011
    The rule does not “subordinate the prosecutor’s plea bargaining authority to the discretion of the courts.” ¶ 42
  • Rivera-Longoria v. Slayton 242 P.3d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Rivera-Longoria v. Slayton 242 P.3d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State of Arizona v. Rachel Marie Vallejo 158 P.3d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Rachel Marie Vallejo 158 P.3d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    ¶ 3 Vallejo’s request for relief was based, to a large degree
  • State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 153 P.3d 1040 Ariz. 2007