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. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC., 611 P.2d 928.

50 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Dustin Gill 391 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2017
  • State of Arizona v. Dustin Gill 391 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2017
    cussions about “a guilty plea” or “no contest plea”); (defining plea negotiations on “any aspect of the disposition of the case” pursuant to Arizona Rule of Evidence 17.4(a) to mean that “‘the State and the defendant may bargain both as to the plea of guilty and as to the sentence to be imposed.’’’) ( ); see also United States v. Levy, 578 F.2d 896, 901 (2d Cir. 1978) (“Plea bargaining implies an offer to plead guilty upon condition.
  • State v. Hon. hancock/jennifer Ferrell 347 P.3d 142 Ariz. 2015
  • State v. Hon. hancock/jennifer Ferrell 347 P.3d 142 Ariz. 2015
    rejected on other grounds by Smith v. Superior Court, 130 Ariz. 210, 212
  • State ex rel. Polk v. Hancock 340 P.3d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State ex rel. Polk v. Hancock 340 P.3d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    at 147 , 894 P.2d at 690 (quoting State v. Superior Court (Williams), , (rejected on other grounds, , )).
  • State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    We are to keep the balance true.’ ” State v. Superior Court (Williams), , (quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 122 , 54 S.Ct.
  • State v. Darelli 72 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Darelli 72 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    However, plea agreements are “an essential part of the criminal process and can enhance judicial economy, protect the resources of the State, and serve the ends of justice for the defendant, the State and the victim.” , (quoting State v. Superior Court (Williams), , (rejected on other grounds, , )).
  • Demarce v. Willrich 56 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Demarce v. Willrich 56 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Espinoza v. Martin 894 P.2d 688 Ariz. 1995
  • Espinoza v. Martin 894 P.2d 688 Ariz. 1995
    are an essential part of the criminal process and can enhance judicial economy, protect the resources of the State, and serve the ends of justice for the defendant, the State and the victim.”
  • State v. Corno 876 P.2d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Corno 876 P.2d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    cf. Rule 17.4(e), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule(s)) (providing that defendant has right to withdraw from plea agreement if court rejects it).
  • State v. Renner 868 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Renner 868 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Oatley 847 P.2d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Oatley 847 P.2d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State Ex Rel. Bowers v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State Ex Rel. Bowers v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    We believe, however, that the state “has standing to object when the court attempts to proceed in apparent disregard of the plea agreement.”
  • State v. Watton 793 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Watton 793 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Draper 784 P.2d 259 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Draper 784 P.2d 259 Ariz. 1989
    (plea agreements “promote the public interest of encouraging settlement of criminal cases without necessity of trial”).
  • State v. Georgeoff 787 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Georgeoff 787 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • Campas v. Superior Court 767 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • Campas v. Superior Court 767 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Rutherford 744 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Rutherford 744 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    (court not bound by sentence agreed to by parties, but had to give parties opportunity to withdraw from plea prior to sentencing), the state argued the trial cou
  • State v. Caperon 728 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Caperon 728 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    that the trial court cannot vary the terms of the agreement, including the stipulated sentence, without the consent of the parties is without authority and should be ignored.
  • State v. Solano 724 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Solano 724 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1986
    Rule 17.4, Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S.
  • State v. Escalante 714 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Escalante 714 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Solano 724 P.2d 42 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Solano 724 P.2d 42 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    stated that under rule 17.4(d) and (e) the trial court must review the plea agreement to see if the ends of justice and the protection of the public are being served by the agreement.
  • Dominguez v. Meehan 681 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Dominguez v. Meehan 681 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    and language in the plea agreement itself.
  • State v. Pyeatt 659 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Pyeatt 659 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    Rule 17.4(d) and (e), Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S.
  • State v. Geschwind 666 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Geschwind 666 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Williams 641 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Williams 641 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • Smith v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 635 P.2d 498 Ariz. 1981
  • Smith v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 635 P.2d 498 Ariz. 1981