Cited by

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

1298 citing documents.

State v. Campos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knight 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. Smith 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. Sandoval Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review “the entire record for reversible error.” ¶ 30
State v. Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review “the entire record for reversible error.” ¶ 30
State v. Guarino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Guarino 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. Mekhail Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Mekhail Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Troutman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Troutman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review “the entire record for reversible error.” ¶ 30
State v. Wade 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. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Grossman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Grossman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Conner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Perkowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Arteaga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Conner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Arteaga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Perkowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review “the entire record for reversible error.” ¶ 30
State v. Tittle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Tittle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Counsel for Tittle filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.3d 89 (App. 1999).1 Finding no arguable issues to raise, counsel requests that this Court search the record for fundamental error.
State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), , McLemore’s counsel found no arguable issues to raise and requested that this Court search the record for fundamental error.
State v. Thompson 270 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Thompson 270 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), , advising that after a search of the record, he has not found any issue that is not frivolous.
State of Arizona v. Linda Ann Siplivy 265 P.3d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Linda Ann Siplivy 265 P.3d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the record and has not found any arguable issues to raise on appeal.2 Counsel has asked us to search the record for “reversible error.” In searching the record for fundamental error, we found potential error regarding the sentences for the offenses not involving metha
State v. Gray 258 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Gray 258 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), , avowing she had conscientiously searched the record and found no arguable issues to raise on appeal.
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Willis 178 P.3d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Willis 178 P.3d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
346 , 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); ¶ 30
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
1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); , , this court affirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed.
State v. Montano 77 P.3d 1246 Ariz. 2003
State v. Montano 77 P.3d 1246 Ariz. 2003
n.2, n.2 (1989)(declining to follow a Ninth Circuit decision which held Arizona’s death penalty statute unconstitutional because that decision rested on “grounds on which different courts may reasonably hold different views of what the Constitution requires”); ¶ 14, (same).
In Re Leon G. 18 P.3d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
In Re Leon G. 18 P.3d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001