Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hill, 330 P.2d 1088.

26 citing documents.

David C. Shinn v. Az boec/freeman Ariz. 2022
David C. Shinn v. Az boec/freeman Ariz. 2022
(holding that an order granting a motion for a new trial “was void for lack of jurisdiction” after being entered outside of the time limit prescribed by the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure); (“[W]e have held in the past the superior court has no jurisdiction t
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
(noting that a trial court lacks the power to grant a new trial after the Rule 24.1(b) time limit expires ( P.2d 1088 (1958))); State v. Hickle, 129 Ariz. 330, 332
State v. Merolle 251 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Merolle 251 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
our supreme court cited Smith *54 in reversing a superior court order that granted an untimely motion for new trial.
State v. McCrimmon 927 P.2d 1298 Ariz. 1996
State v. McCrimmon 927 P.2d 1298 Ariz. 1996
State v. Wagstaff 775 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Wagstaff 775 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Maule v. ARIZ. SUPER. COURT FOR MARICOPA CTY 690 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Maule v. ARIZ. SUPER. COURT FOR MARICOPA CTY 690 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Hickle 650 P.2d 1216 Ariz. 1982
State v. Hickle 650 P.2d 1216 Ariz. 1982
See Rule 24.1(b), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
State v. Hickle 631 P.2d 112 Ariz. 1981
State v. Hickle 631 P.2d 112 Ariz. 1981
State v. Streett 463 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Streett 463 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Churton 448 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Churton 448 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
As a motion for a new trial, this motion was most untimely, , and, as we shall see, it was not actually a motion for new trial at all.
State v. Vasquez 402 P.2d 574 Ariz. 1965
State v. Vasquez 402 P.2d 574 Ariz. 1965
State v. Hill 352 P.2d 699 Ariz. 1960
State v. Hill 352 P.2d 699 Ariz. 1960
The grounds specified in the second motion was newly discovered evidence; hence, insofar as the record here is concerned, no order to the time of the first appeal, , , was made regarding it.