Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Clark, 2 P.3d 89.

1310 citing documents.

State v. Toledo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Mayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review “the entire record for reversible error.” ¶ 30
State v. Toledo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. 738; P.3d 89 (App. 1999).
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-36, ¶¶ 22- 24, -95 (App. 1999) (discussing proper method to achieve purpose of Anders appeal — to ensure indigent defendants receive equal and effective counsel in identifying arguable issues for appeal) (citing Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-83 (1988)).
State v. Valero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Valero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Our obligation is to review “the entire record for reversible error.” ¶ 30
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Shumaker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Shumaker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review “the entire record for reversible error.” ¶ 30
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶2 Our obligation is to review “the entire record for reversible error.” ¶ 30
State v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Faccio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Faccio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. 738; P.3d 89 (App. 1999).
State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Anders, 386 U.S. 738; Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); ¶ 30
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Richards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Richards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review “the entire record for reversible error.” ¶ 30
State v. Navarrette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Navarrette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 30, (stating that this court reviews the entire record for reversible error).
State v. Centeno-Sarabia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Laakmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 30, (stating that this court reviews the entire record for reversible error).
State v. Centeno-Sarabia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Laakmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Penn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Penn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Anders, 386 U.S. 738; Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); P.3d 89 (App. 1999).
State v. Wickham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wickham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Our obligation is to review “the entire record for reversible error.” ¶ 30
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Anders, 386 U.S. 738; Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); P.3d 89 (App. 1999).
State v. Carrier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Carrier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Counsel for Carrier filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.3d 89 (App. 1999).
State v. Steinbrugger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Steinbrugger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Maestas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Maestas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Counsel for Maestas filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.3d 89 (App. 1999).
State v. Coven Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Coven Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶3 Our obligation in this appeal is to review “the entire record for reversible error.” ¶ 30
State v. Ales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014