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. Reagan, 440 P.2d 907.

29 citing documents.

  • State v. Strait Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Strait Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    our supreme court held that a prior conviction could not be used to enhance a defendant’s sentence unless the record of the prior conviction affirmatively showed the defendant either was represented by counsel or had validly waived his right to counsel.
  • State v. McCann 21 P.3d 845 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. McCann 21 P.3d 845 Ariz. 2001
    ¶ 1 , we held that a court can use a prior conviction to enhance a sentence only if “the record of that prior conviction show[s] that [the] defendant was represented by counsel, or advised of his rights to counsel, and waived his right to counsel, before it can be used in [a] subsequent prosecution.”
  • State v. McCann 3 P.3d 388 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. McCann 3 P.3d 388 Ariz. 2000
    ¶ 1 , we held that a court can use a prior conviction to enhance a sentence only if “the record of that prior conviction show[s] that [the] defendant was represented by counsel, or advised of his rights to counsel, and waived his right to counsel, before it can be used in [a] subsequent prosecution.”
  • State v. Anderson 916 P.2d 1170 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Anderson 916 P.2d 1170 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. McGowan 746 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. McGowan 746 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    Id., at 280-81 , 576 P.2d at 139-40
  • State v. Hartford 651 P.2d 856 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Hartford 651 P.2d 856 Ariz. 1982
    1758 , 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964); , and sentencing is a critical stage.
  • State v. White 576 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. White 576 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Valenzuela 506 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Valenzuela 506 P.2d 240 Ariz. 1973
    we stated: “[W]hen an allegation of prior conviction ...
  • State v. Renaud 499 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Renaud 499 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1972
    This Court has repeatedly followed that decision, , that “ * * [p] resuming waiver of counsel from a silent record is not permissible.” 103 Ariz. at 288 , 440 P.2d at 908 .
  • State v. Bridges 468 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Bridges 468 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    and subsequent cases, the rule has been firmly established that before the record of a prior conviction can be used to enhance punishment beyond the statutory maximum for the offense charged, it must be shown that the defendant was represented by counsel, or advised of his right to counsel and w
  • State v. Jelks 461 P.2d 473 Ariz. 1969
  • Smith v. Eyman 451 P.2d 877 Ariz. 1969
  • Smith v. Eyman 451 P.2d 877 Ariz. 1969
  • Rosthenhausler v. State ex rel. Eyman 447 P.2d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • State v. Dean 447 P.2d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Rosthenhausler v. State ex rel. Eyman 447 P.2d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    and this court’s decision in Garcia v. State, 7 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Dean 447 P.2d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    The Supreme Court of Arizona, , passed directly upon the second issue presented here, and thereby decided the first as well.
  • Garcia v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 441 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Garcia v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 441 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    That he was sentenced to'a term of one (1) to two (2) years in the State Prison.” We subsequently ordered that the attorney general file a response within five days or the writ would issue, citing State v. Reagan, Ariz.