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. Masters, 494 P.2d 1319.

42 citing documents.

  • State v. West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    –13 (1972) (affirming a represented defendant’s guilty-plea-based conviction despite lack of transcript of the change of plea).
  • State v. Teran 510 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Teran 510 P.3d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    This court has “previously disapproved the practice of holding unrecorded bench conferences on trial motions.” n.4 (App. 1996) (refusing to fault defense counsel for the lack of a record because the superior court’s actions prevented a contemporaneous record); (remanding a robbery case for a new trial when no transcript of the trial was available “through no fault of the defendant”).
  • Toni T. v. Dcs, E.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Toni T. v. Dcs, E.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    (noting that a reconstructed record based on the party’s memory of proceedings that occurred around six years earlier “would probably not be of much aid to the appellate court”).
  • State v. Ashmeade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Ashmeade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    (new trial warranted where transcripts were unavailable “through no fault of the defendant”).
  • State of Arizona v. Crispin Granados Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Crispin Granados Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    Even if a trial record is incomplete, we assume that it supports the judgment unless there is “‘at least a credible and unmet allegation of reversible error.’” Id.
  • State v. Scott 930 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Scott 930 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Schackart 858 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Schackart 858 P.2d 639 Ariz. 1993
    (when a transcript is lost or unavailable, the court will assume that the record supports the judgment unless there is “at least a credible and unmet allegation of reversible error”).
  • State v. Navarre 647 P.2d 178 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Navarre 647 P.2d 178 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Dickey 608 P.2d 302 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Dickey 608 P.2d 302 Ariz. 1980
    Although serious problems may be presented when an appellate court seeks to review a trial judgment without a complete record, , 494 P.2d *167 1319 (1972); State v. Madrid, 20 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Whitehead 596 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Whitehead 596 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Ward 586 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Ward 586 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1978
    In any event, the reporter’s transcript was not available and this court, in face of defendant’s prima facie allegation of fundamental error, , reversed with an unpublished opinion.
  • State v. Domme 532 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Domme 532 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1975
    : “This court has consistently held that the trial court has wide discretion in the pronouncement of a sentence and that we will uphold a sentence if it is within the statutory limits, unless the sentence under the circumstances is so clearly excessive as to constitute an abuse of discretion [cit
  • State v. Corrales 528 P.2d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. Corrales 528 P.2d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. Bates 526 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Bates 526 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Benge 520 P.2d 843 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Benge 520 P.2d 843 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Battelle 520 P.2d 308 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Battelle 520 P.2d 308 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Rovin 518 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. Rovin 518 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. Hart 514 P.2d 1243 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Hart 514 P.2d 1243 Ariz. 1973
    Where, however, through no fault of the defendant the reporter’s transcript is unavailable and the defendant has shown prima facie fundamental error, we feel that a new trial should be granted.”
  • State v. Nunez 510 P.2d 380 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Nunez 510 P.2d 380 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Madrid 510 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Madrid 510 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    the Supreme Court reversed a robbery conviction when it appeared a conflict of interest might have prevented a fair trial and there was no reporter’s transcript for review.
  • State v. Maxwell 508 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Maxwell 508 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973