DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Corvelo, 369 P.2d 903.

66 citing documents.

  • State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    de denial of effective assistance of counsel, failure to follow the 6 STATE v. NELSON Decision of the Court procedures prescribed by Rule 17, an incorrect factual determination made under Rule 17.3, and such traditional grounds as ‘mistake and misapprehension,’ P.2d 903 (1962)[,] and ‘duress and fraud,’ P. 311 (1931); P.2d 317 (1966).
  • State v. Rivera 109 P.3d 83 Ariz. 2005
  • State v. Rivera 109 P.3d 83 Ariz. 2005
  • Washington v. Superior Court 881 P.2d 1196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Washington v. Superior Court 881 P.2d 1196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    Although the trial court has discretion to determine whether justice requires withdrawal, that discretion “should be liberally exercised____ Where there is any showing that justice will be served thereby, any doubt should be resolved in favor of withdrawing the plea.” , (citations omitted).
  • State v. Dockery 821 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Dockery 821 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • Duran v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR MARICOPA 782 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • Duran v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR MARICOPA 782 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    See, , , , , -05 (1962); , State v. Gibbs, 6 Ariz.App.
  • State v. City Court of City of Tucson 640 P.2d 167 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. City Court of City of Tucson 640 P.2d 167 Ariz. 1981
    7 , and before this court is what is meant by the term “manifest injustice.” The Comment to Rule 17.5 states: “The term manifest injustice is intended to include denial of effective assistance of counsel, failure to follow the procedures prescribed by Rule 17, and incorrect factual determination made under Rule 17.3, and such traditional grounds as ‘mistake and misapprehension,’ , and ‘duress and fraud,’ , 295 P. 311 (1931); , ” The Court of Appeals held, in interpreting the Comment to Rule 17.5
  • State v. Chavez 636 P.2d 1220 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Chavez 636 P.2d 1220 Ariz. 1981
    United States v. Davis, 212 F.2d 264 (7th Cir. 1954); Bergen v. United States, 145 F.2d 181 (8th Cir. 1944).
  • State v. City Court 640 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. City Court 640 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Wilson 615 P.2d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Wilson 615 P.2d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Hunter 539 P.2d 885 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Hunter 539 P.2d 885 Ariz. 1975
    Appellant first urges that it was error for the trial court to refuse to allow him to withdraw his plea of guilty after he returned from the Arizona State Hospital following a , , for the proposition that the determination of whether a guilty plea should be allowed to be withdrawn is a matter for the sound discretion of the trial court.
  • State v. Ellison 526 P.2d 706 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Ellison 526 P.2d 706 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Fratus 513 P.2d 373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Distinguished State v. Fratus 513 P.2d 373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    and Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 , 92 S.Ct.
  • State v. Mallory 504 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Mallory 504 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    a plea of guilty to an amended information charging the offense of receiving stolen property, which information lacked the Kuhnley specificity, was reversed for the reason that the amended information did not contain the required specificity.
  • State v. Andrus 495 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Andrus 495 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    State v. Osborn, 16 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Osborn 494 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Osborn 494 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Fulper 493 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Fulper 493 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Williams 489 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Williams 489 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Smith 478 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Smith 478 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    Appellant also complains that the trial court improperly inquired into the subject of his guilt, pointing out that guilt or innocence was not an issue, and cites State v. Córvelo
  • State v. Fuentes 467 P.2d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Fuentes 467 P.2d 760 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Christopher 457 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Christopher 457 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    *173 , State v. Stewart, 3 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Gibbs 435 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • Distinguished State v. Gibbs 435 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
  • State v. Betts 425 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • State v. Betts 425 P.2d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    * * * ’ “ , where the defendant was charged with receiving stolen property consisting of ‘personal *259 property belonging to one Lavonne Gillespie’ without any indication of the nature of the value.
  • State v. Stewart 412 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • State v. Stewart 412 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • State v. Franklin 409 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Franklin 409 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Rogers 407 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Rogers 407 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965