DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mayer v. State, 908 P.2d 56.

25 citing documents.

  • State v. Young 513 P.3d 343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Young 513 P.3d 343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Berry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Berry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    By entering a plea agreement, Berry waived all non-jurisdictional defenses, errors, and defects which occurred prior to 1 Although Berry filed his petition for post-conviction relief after the filing deadline, his petition for post-conviction relief was timely under the “prisoner mailbox rule.” (“[A] pro se prisoner is deemed to have filed his notice of appeal at the time it is delivered, properly addressed, to the proper prison authorities to be forwarded to the clerk of the superior court.”).
  • State v. Parham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Parham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    1 “[A] pro se prisoner is deemed to have filed his notice of appeal at the time it is delivered, properly addressed, to the proper prison authorities to be forwarded to the clerk of the superior court.”
  • State v. Tetrick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Tetrick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    2 STATE v. TETRICK Decision of the Court pro se prisoner is deemed to have filed his notice of appeal at the time it is delivered, properly addressed, to the proper prison authorities to be forwarded to the clerk of the superior court.” (emphasis added).
  • Merrick v. D. Hurley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Merrick v. D. Hurley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    (“[P]ro se prisoner is deemed to have filed his notice of appeal at the time it is delivered, properly addressed, to the proper prison authorities to be forwarded to the clerk of the superior court.”).
  • Medley v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Medley v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    This Court has held, however, “that a pro se prisoner is deemed to have filed [her] notice of appeal at the time it is delivered, properly addressed, to the proper prison authorities to be forwarded to the clerk of the superior court.”
  • Baker v. Bradley 296 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Baker v. Bradley 296 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    Under the prisoner mailbox rule, "a pro se prisoner is deemed to have filed his notice of appeal at the time it is delivered, properly addressed, to the proper prison authorities to be forwarded to the clerk of the superior court.”
  • STATE EX REL. GODDARD v. Ochoa 228 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • STATE EX REL. GODDARD v. Ochoa 228 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    Arizona applies the prison mailbox rule to pro se prisoners filing a notice of appeal, , a petition for post-conviction relief, ¶ 10 , and a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court, ¶ 13
  • Lee v. State 182 P.3d 1169 Ariz. 2008
  • Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • Burkhamer v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    ¶11 “It is settled in Arizona that the perfecting of an appeal within the time prescribed is jurisdictional; and, hence, where the appeal is not timely filed, the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction other than to dismiss the attempted appeal.” see also Mayer v. State, 184 Ariz. 242, 243, (“Appellate courts lack jurisdiction to consider appeals that are not timely filed.”); Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
  • State v. Goracke 106 P.3d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Goracke 106 P.3d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    The prisoner mailbox rule, as applied to appeals, is “that a pro se prisoner is deemed to have filed his notice of appeal at the time it is delivered, properly addressed, to the proper prison authorities to be forwarded to the clerk of the superior court.”
  • Byers-Watts v. Parker 18 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Byers-Watts v. Parker 18 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    ("Appellate courts lack jurisdiction to consider appeals that are not timely filed.”).
  • State v. Rosario 987 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Rosario 987 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    2379 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), , in which cases the court considered an incarcerated litigant’s notice of appeal to be filed when the notice was delivered to the department of corrections for mailing.