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. Leon, 451 P.2d 878.

2476 citing documents.

  • State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Chesson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    H O W E, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969).
  • State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error.
  • State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Hernandez’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. Sagarnaga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Sagarnaga’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error.
  • State v. Blackwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Pursuant to Anders v. Cal., 386 U.S. 738 (1967) Defendant’s counsel has filed a brief indicating he searched the entire record and finding no arguable question of law, asks this court to review the record for fundamental error.
  • State v. Acosta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Settle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Settle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel searched the record, found no arguable question of law, and asked us to review the record for reversible error.
  • State v. Acosta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Acosta’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error.
  • State v. Sullivan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Brennan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Sullivan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Counsel for Sullivan filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising that after searching the record on appeal, she was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal.
  • State v. Brennan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Brennan’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that she has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error.
  • State v. Kegler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Pham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error.
  • State v. Kegler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    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 Mamawallde Albert Kegler's conviction of theft of means of transportation, a Class 3 felony.
  • State v. Pham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Pham’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error.
  • State v. Flores Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Flores Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Flores’ counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error, and also raising several issues at Flores’ request.
  • State v. Magana Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Magana Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    P O R T L E Y, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) P.2d 878 (1969).
  • State v. Summers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Thomas’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. Summers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Counsel for Summers filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising that after searching the record on appeal, she was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal.
  • State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    His counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that he had searched the record on appeal and had not found any arguable question of law that was not frivolous.
  • State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    P O R T L E Y, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) P.2d 878 (1969).
  • State v. Porras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Philpot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Porras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    P O R T L E Y, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) P.2d 878 (1969).
  • State v. Philpot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    H O W E, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) P.2d 878 (1969).
  • State v. Albano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Mendez-Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Albano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    H O W E, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) P.2d 878 (1969).
  • State v. Mendez-Delgado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    T H O M P S O N, Presiding Judge: ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969).
  • State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Carimbocas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Carimbocas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    P O R T L E Y, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) P.2d 878 (1969).
  • State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); P.2d 878 (1969), stating he has searched the record for error but failed to identify “any arguable issues of merit.” Appellant’s counsel therefore requests that we review the record for fundamental error.
  • State v. Durazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Forister Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Martinez’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that she has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error.
  • State v. Durazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error.
  • State v. Forister Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error.