Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Leon, 451 P.2d 878.

2476 citing documents.

State v. Mohamed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Mohamed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Mohamed’s counsel filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising us there are no meritorious grounds for reversal.
State v. Billie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Billie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Billie’s counsel filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) advising us there are no meritorious grounds for reversal.
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hitchcock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Stevens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967)
State v. Hitchcock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Hitchcock’s counsel filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) advising us there are no meritorious grounds for reversal.
State v. Pendleton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
After searching the record and finding no arguable, non-frivolous question of law, Anderson’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error.
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Defense counsel avows she searched the record and found no arguable, non-frivolous question of law, and filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error.
State v. Pendleton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Further, citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel requests we review the record for fundamental error.
State v. Sleeper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Walter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Sleeper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
STATE v. SLEEPER Decision of the Court G A S S, Judge: ¶1 Richard Wayne Sleeper filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
State v. Walter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Walter’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, counsel identified no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.
State v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
State v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
F U R U Y A, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
State v. Glasscock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Glasscock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
C A M P B E L L, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Torres originally filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
State v. Trapp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Trapp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
STATE v. TRAPP Decision of the Court G A S S, Judge: ¶1 Heather Ann Trapp filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
State v. Lebian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Kelley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
C A M P B E L L, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
State v. Kelley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating he has searched the record on appeal and found no error or arguable question of law.
State v. Lebian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
P E R K I N S, Judge: ¶1 Adrian Dewayne Lebian timely appealed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) following his convictions for two counts of aggravated assault, and resisting arrest.
State v. Holmes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Holmes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
H O W E, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
In Re Ulises A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re Ulises A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ulises’ counsel filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Maricopa Cty.
State v. Santos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Santos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
C R U Z, Judge: ¶1 This appeal was filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
C A T T A N I, Judge: ¶1 Terrance Lee King appeals his convictions and sentences for possession of narcotic drugs and possession of marijuana.1 King’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Robinson’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.
State v. Perryman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Perryman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
State v. Cerrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Cerrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error.