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 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
  • State v. Darelli 72 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Darelli 72 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    ¶ 23 ¶ 1 , this court considered whether the loss of a favorable plea bargain precipitated by ineffective assistance of counsel inflicted a “constitutionally significant injury upon a defendant who has received a fair trial.” In holding that it did, we considered that a trial court conf
  • Cranmer v. State 63 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State v. Sepahi 61 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Cranmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Cranmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    329, 331, (within prosecutor’ s discretion to admit defendant into child molester’ s treatment program); (“ Discretion over plea bargaining is a core prosecutorial power, but .
  • Cranmer v. State 63 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    ally or in excess of his [or her] powers.” , .(whether to admit defendant into Adult Diversion Program is decision within prosecutor’s discretion); , (within prosecutor’s discretion to admit defendant into child molester’s treatment program); , (“Discretion over plea bargaining is a core prosecutorial power, but ...
  • State v. Sepahi 61 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    ¶ 29 , (review denied Mar.
  • Andrews v. Willrich 29 P.3d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Andrews v. Willrich 29 P.3d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Espinosa 29 P.3d 278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Espinosa 29 P.3d 278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001