Cited by

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

2476 citing documents.

State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Navarro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 Nathaniel Wade timely filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following his conviction of possession of a dangerous drug, a Class 4 felony.
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following the revocation of Nelson's probation.
State v. Navarro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Therefore, under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel asked this Court to search the record for fundamental error.
State v. Graff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Dutra 426 P.3d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. May Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Graff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
W I N T H R O P, Judge: ¶1 Counsel for Donald Duane Graff, Jr. (“Appellant”) has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); advising this court that he has found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous and asking us to search the record for fundamental error.
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); stating that he searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.
State v. Dutra 426 P.3d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
§ 13- 706(B), (F)(2) (enumerating aggravated offenses).1 ¶6 Dutra timely appealed, and his counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), after searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable, non-frivolous question of law.
State v. May Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
C R U Z, Presiding Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
State v. Fittz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Nevell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Nevell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
T H O M P S O N, Judge: ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
State v. Fittz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Fittz’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, she found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.
State v. Braxton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel requested that we search the record for fundamental error.
State v. Braxton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Braxton’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. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel asked this Court to search the record for fundamental error.
State v. Foard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Foard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 Morgan Jay Foard timely filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following his conviction of reckless child abuse, a Class 5 felony.
State v. Medrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
C R U Z, Presiding Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
State v. Medrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel advised the Court that she has found no arguable question of law, and requested this Court search the record for fundamental error.
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel asked this Court to search the record for fundamental error.
State v. McCabe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. McCabe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, McCabe’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asking this court to search the record for reversible error.
State v. Gallagher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Gallagher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 Lester Raymond Gallagher timely filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following his conviction of ten counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, all Class 2 felonies.
State v. Ziegenfuss Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Dahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ziegenfuss Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ziegenfuss’ 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 found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.
State v. Dahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel asked this Court to search the record for fundamental error.
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
S W A N N, Judge: ¶1 This case is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), from James Randolph Miller’s convictions and sentences for fraudulent schemes and artifices, and forgery.
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 Kymbal Le'Mitre Brown timely filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following his conviction of robbery, a Class 4 felony.
State v. Santistevan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Santistevan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
B E E N E, Judge: ¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) following Shaun Michael Santistevan’s (“Santistevan”) conviction for aggravated assault, a class 3 dangerous felony.
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 Megan Hill timely filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following her conviction of possession of dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia.
State v. Ingram Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ingram Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
C R U Z, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)