Cited by

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

314 citing documents.

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It is well established, for example, that the courts may intervene to reinstate a plea offer that the State has withdrawn for vindictive reasons.”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
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 153 P.3d 1040 Ariz. 2007
The prosecutor argued that reinstatement of a P.3d 1193 (App. 2000), in the absence of a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
¶ 44 , which permits a court to remedy a deprivation of effective assistance of counsel by compelling the state to reinstate a plea offer.
Ottaway v. Smith 113 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Ottaway v. Smith 113 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
416 ¶ 36, (recognizing that “government necessarily entails some blending of powers and that ‘absolute independence of the branches of government and *494 complete separation of powers is impracticable.’ ”) (quoting J.W.
State of Arizona v. Rodney George Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Rodney George Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
¶4 Jackson’s plea-related ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is based on State v. Donald , P.3d 1193 (App. 2000), which, he asserted below, is a significant change in the law and therefore insulated from the preclusion rules.
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004