Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Smith v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC., 635 P.2d 498.

28 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Bennett Laquan Williams 553 P.3d 161 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Bennett Laquan Williams 553 P.3d 161 Ariz. 2024
P. 17.4(e); (noting that, pursuant alleging a different prior offense when the Court set aside the defendant’s guilty plea and remanded.
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, , )).
Aragon v. Wilkinson 97 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Aragon v. Wilkinson 97 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Ariz. R. Crim P. 17.4(d); , (“In dealing with sentencing we are not dealing with the Double Jeopardy Clause”).
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
“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, , )).
State v. Nevell 798 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Nevell 798 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
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 court did not have jurisdiction to “sentence contrary to the plea (with rega
State v. De Nistor 694 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1985
State v. De Nistor 694 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1985
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
After hearing, this court entered the following order on April 12: “It appearing that the trial court accepted the plea and, it appearing that the trial court abused its discretion by setting aside the plea and judgment of guilt without giving the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea, see Smith v. Superior Court, etc., , the order of the trial court dated March 3,1983 is vacated and set aside and the trial court is ORDERED to proceed as set forth in Smith, supra.” In Smith, supra, the 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
While there is language in State v. Superior Court, supra, which implies that once a plea is accepted, the trial court has no jurisdiction other than to proceed with the stipulated sentence, , : , that the trial judge is bound by the sentence proposed in the plea agreement, but this notion is directly contrary to the plain language in Rule 17.4(d) and (e).
State v. Wilson 638 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1981
State v. Wilson 638 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1981
Williams v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 635 P.2d 497 Ariz. 1981
Williams v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 635 P.2d 497 Ariz. 1981
In Smith v. Superior Court, 130 Ariz. -, we discussed the principles applicable to sentencing under a plea agreement.