Cited by

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

2476 citing documents.

State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
STATE v. GONZALEZ Decision of the Court 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. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
State v. Sepulveda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
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), P.2d 878 (1969).
State v. Tabor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Tabor 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 Andree Tabor's convictions of six counts of organized retail theft, Class 4 felonies.
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel has searched the record, found no arguable question of law, and asked us to review the record for reversible error.
State v. Stroble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Stroble 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), by Timothy Stroble following his conviction of robbery, a Class 4 felony.
State v. Wayment Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mutuberria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mutuberria 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. Wayment 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. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Gomez’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 that he has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous.
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dawe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Long Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶2 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
State v. Long 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 that she has searched the record and found “no arguable issues on appeal.” Appellant’s counsel therefore requests that we review the entire record for error.
State v. Dawe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) Defendant’s counsel filed a brief indicating that she searched the entire record, found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous and asked this court to review the record for fundamental error.
State v. Hunsaker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mattison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Magee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Magee 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. Hunsaker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hunsaker’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. Mattison 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 the revocation of Circe Mattison's probation and resulting imposition of sentence.
State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Marshall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Martinez 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. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) Medina’s counsel filed a brief indicating he searched the entire record, found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous and asked this court to review the record for fundamental error.
State v. Marshall 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 Michael Marshall's convictions of aggravated assault, a Class 3 felony, and misconduct involving weapons, a Class 4 felony.
State v. Bibbins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gleba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gleba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Counsel for Gleba filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising that after searching the record on appeal, he was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal.
State v. Garcia 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 that she has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous.
State v. Bibbins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Bibbins’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), 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. Mangan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Fernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hoffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mangan 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 that he has searched the record on appeal and found no question of law that is not frivolous.
State v. Fernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶2 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
State v. Hoffman 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. Dalton 366 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dalton 366 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), , and asked this court to search the record for fundamental error.
State v. Mayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016