Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hinson v. Coulter, 723 P.2d 655.

90 citing documents.

Hennessey v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hennessey v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
The superior court ruled that Rule 8.2(a) was “triggered” by the date of arraignment, therefore it was not necessary to determine whether the city’s “inability to serve or arrest the defendant would be excluded time under Rule 8.4(a),” , ( , ).
State v. Lemming 937 P.2d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Lemming 937 P.2d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Snow v. Superior Court 903 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Snow v. Superior Court 903 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Although dismissal with prejudice was proper in Petitioner’s prior case because of the strict construction of the 150 day *326
Humble v. Superior Court 880 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Humble v. Superior Court 880 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See, , , overruled on other grounds by Mendoza; , , (court of appeals declined special action jurisdiction but supreme court granted review to reverse and remand to trial court).
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
See, , (overruling the interpretation of Rule 8.2(a), Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S., , ).
Hedlund v. Sheldon 840 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1992
Hedlund v. Sheldon 840 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1992
See, , (overruling the interpretation of Rule 8.2(a), Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S., , ).
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1992
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1992
On December 1, 1988, , because the state was not ready to proceed to trial on December 4, 1988, as required under Hinson .
State v. Petzoldt 836 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Petzoldt 836 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
for the proposition that delay can become prejudicial per se.
State v. Noble 808 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Noble 808 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
those cases are significantly different.
State v. Swensrud 810 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1991
State v. Swensrud 810 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1991
In any event, the defendant must be tried within 150 days of arrest as provided in Rule 8.2(a)____
State ex rel. McDougall v. Nastro 800 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1990
State ex rel. McDougall v. Nastro 800 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1990
The superior court judge based his ruling on the belief the 150- , was applicable to juveniles charged with violating A.R.S.
In Re the Appeals in Maricopa County Juvenile Actions No. JV119590 & No. JV118201 810 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
In Re the Appeals in Maricopa County Juvenile Actions No. JV119590 & No. JV118201 810 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
the juvenile court judge in each case dismissed the respective charges with prejudice due to the state’s failure to try the juveniles within one hundred fifty days of arrest.
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
On appeal, he argues that: (1) his convictions must be reversed because the state failed to present any “relation-back” , (2) the trial court should have dismissed the case because the 150- , was violated.
State v. Campa 793 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Campa 793 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Rule 8.2(a), 17 A.R.S., Rules of Crim.Proc.
State v. Loera 799 P.2d 884 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Loera 799 P.2d 884 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
On March 15, 1989, Loera filed a motion to dismiss, contending that his state right to a speedy trial had been violated, relying upon Rule 8, A.R.Crim.P.
Knapp v. Miller 799 P.2d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Knapp v. Miller 799 P.2d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Andre v. Tucson City Court 797 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Andre v. Tucson City Court 797 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
On April 18, 1988, appellant filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice for failure to try her within the 150-
State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Court 783 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1989
State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Court 783 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1989
ISSUES We must answer the following questions on appeal: *303 A. Do Rule 8.2(b), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., , which require that trial for a defendant in custody be set within 120 days from date of arrest, apply to a DUI defendant who is not in custody pursuant to the current DUI charge, but is in custody on another matter?
Watts v. Fleischman 778 P.2d 1232 Ariz. 1989
Watts v. Fleischman 778 P.2d 1232 Ariz. 1989
On June 16, 1988, after hearing argument on the motion to dismiss, Judge Knop granted defendant’s rule 8 motion
State v. Miller 778 P.2d 1364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Miller 778 P.2d 1364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
8, 17 A.R.S., , as alleged in one of his motions before the trial court.
State ex rel. McDougall v. Municipal Court 772 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State ex rel. McDougall v. Municipal Court 772 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Hinson Argument The state next argues that the pretrial resolution of motions to strike “priors”
State v. Armstrong 771 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Armstrong 771 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
The state appeals from the trial court’s
Mields v. Villarreal 769 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Mields v. Villarreal 769 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Thereafter, , *558 (1986).
State v. Guerrero 769 P.2d 1014 Ariz. 1989
Cornell v. Superior Court, Cochise County 770 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1989
Cornell v. Superior Court, Cochise County 770 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1989
State v. Guerrero 769 P.2d 1014 Ariz. 1989
(hereinafter “Rule_”), , the defense did not object to the trial date.