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 Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court, 901 P.2d 1169.

24 citing documents.

  • State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. Combs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    See Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 458 (1912) (Absconding while on bail throughout the trial may not operate as a defense for absence.); -57 (1971) (Defendant’s absence was voluntary when he failed to appear because he had no funds to travel for his trial.); State v. Superior Court (Ochoa), (When a defendant absconds and fails to communicate with his attorney, his absence is voluntary.).
  • State of Arizona v. Steven Ricardo Vallejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
  • State of Arizona v. Steven Ricardo Vallejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
    -45 (App. 1995) (affirming finding of voluntary absence where defendant, who had escaped from confinement, had no notice of continued trial date).
  • State v. Melendez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Melendez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. McShea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. McShea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Brennan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Brennan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    -145 (App. 1995) (holding an escaped defendant who did not contact his attorney could be found voluntarily absent, even when he did not have notice of the continued trial date).
  • State v. Puccini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Puccini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    -45 (App. 1995) (holding a defendant may voluntarily absent himself from trial even 4 STATE v. PUCCINI Decision of the Court without actual notice of a continued trial date).
  • State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See State v. Superior Court (Ochoa), -45 (App. 1995).
  • State ex rel Thomas v. Blakey 118 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State ex rel Thomas v. Blakey 118 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Walker 95 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Walker 95 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    Romley v. Superior Court (Ochoa), , (absence of any of factors listed in Rule 9.1 does not prevent inference of voluntary absence); Cook, 115 Ariz. at 149, 564 P.2d at 100 (Rule 9.1 inference is only one set of facts that supports inference of voluntariness).
  • State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    Romley v. Superior Court (Ochoa), , (exchange of calendars between two judges does not affect requirement of Rule 16.1(d) that “rulings be reconsidered only upon a showing of good cause”).
  • State v. Muniz-Caudillo 914 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • State v. Muniz-Caudillo 914 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
    The instant scenario is similar to that addressed in State v. Superior Court (Ochoa)