DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

90 citing documents.

  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Gerber 766 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1988
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Gerber 766 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Superior Court 763 P.2d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Superior Court 763 P.2d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    The petitioner’s remedy by appeal is inadequate due to a possible violation of the 150-
  • Shepherd v. Fahringer 762 P.2d 553 Ariz. 1988
  • Shepherd v. Fahringer 762 P.2d 553 Ariz. 1988
    ISSUES The following issues must be resolved: A. Was defendant denied his right to a speedy trial in violation of Rule 8, Ariz.R.Crim.P., , ?
  • State v. Soto 764 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Soto 764 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    Soto argues that the state failed to bring him to trial within 150 , Rule 8, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  • City of Tucson v. Fahringer 781 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • City of Tucson v. Fahringer 781 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Gin 761 P.2d 1106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Gin 761 P.2d 1106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    1(a), 17A A.R.S.; , and because we believe the trial court’s ruling was in error, we assume jurisdiction and grant relief.
  • State v. Grabbe 760 P.2d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Grabbe 760 P.2d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    On June 30, 1987, the trial judge granted a
  • State v. Snow 760 P.2d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Snow 760 P.2d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    The state appeals from the trial court’s , arguing that because the delay resulted from the inability of the state to execute the arrest warrant or serve the summons, such delay was “occasioned by or on behalf of the defendant” and is therefore excludable time under Rule 8.4(a), Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S.
  • State v. Adams 750 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Adams 750 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • Duron v. Fleischman 751 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • Duron v. Fleischman 751 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    On December 21, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the charges with prejudice because of the speedy trial violation
  • State v. Guerrero 754 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Guerrero 754 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    appellant argues that the strict enforcement of the 150-day time limit mandated by the supreme court’s decision in that case requires reversal of his conviction and dismissal of the charges with prejudice.
  • Johnson v. Tucson City Court 751 P.2d 600 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • Johnson v. Tucson City Court 751 P.2d 600 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    being prospective, is inapplicable.
  • State v. Tarkington 760 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Tarkington 760 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    The state appeals the trial court’s order dismissing a driving while intoxicated prosecution based on a violation of Rule 8, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure
  • State v. White 747 P.2d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. White 747 P.2d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    is not applicable to this case, but argues that it shows the Arizona Supreme Court’s extreme concern about the effects of delay in DWI cases.
  • Wood v. Goodfarb 745 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1987
  • Wood v. Goodfarb 745 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1987
  • Shepherd v. Fahringer 746 P.2d 1324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • Shepherd v. Fahringer 746 P.2d 1324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
    Specifically, , in two ways: (1) by dismissing pending DUI charges against him, then 130 days later refiling felony charges arising from his arrest for DUI; and (2) due to the refiling delay, the state but not the defense was prepared to go to trial within 150 days.
  • State v. Bruggeman 744 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Bruggeman 744 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Driggs 745 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Driggs 745 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Crotty 731 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Crotty 731 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    Although the length of time which elapsed between the initial arrest and the formal charges filed against the defendant would, if it occurred today, require a dismissal, , that case applies only *267 from the date of the issuance of the mandate.
  • State v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA COUNTY 732 P.2d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA COUNTY 732 P.2d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986