Cited by

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

2476 citing documents.

State v. Mayes 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. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
K E S S L E R, Judge: ¶1 Roger Nelson filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following his conviction of one count of leaving the scene of a damage accident, one count of disorderly conduct, one count of armed robbery, three counts of aggravated assault, and one count of attempted second degree murder.
State v. Pena Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Pena 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. Turvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dean Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Turvin 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. Dean Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Dean’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. Gurule Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gurule Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Gurule’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); indicating he has searched the entire record on appeal and has found no arguable questions of law that are not frivolous.
State v. Petersen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Parsons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Huffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Huffman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Huffman’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. Petersen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) §§ 13-1507 (2010), -1508 (2010).1 Counsel for Petersen filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), requesting that this Court search the record for fundamental error.
State v. Miller 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 Eric Miller's convictions of four counts of aggravated driving or actual physical control while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, each a Class 4 felony.
State v. Parsons 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 Scott Michael Parsons's probation.
State v. Wagoner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Vasquez’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. Wagoner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Wagoner’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. Puccini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Massey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Puccini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Defendant’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising this Court that after a search of the entire appellate record, no arguable ground exists for reversal.
State v. Massey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Defendant’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising this Court that after a search of the entire appellate record, no arguable ground exists for reversal.
State v. Begay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Begay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Defendant’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising this Court that after a search of the entire appellate record, no arguable ground exists for reversal.
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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. Granauro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Granauro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶2 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
State v. Winfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Lieser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Amador-Creane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Amador-Creane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Amador-Creane’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating 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. Lieser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lieser’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, there does not appear to be an arguable question of law that is not frivolous, and asking this court to search the record for reversible error.
State v. Winfield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Winfield’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, she found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.
State v. Minjarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Esposito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Esposito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
State v. Minjarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dickenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Arvizu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Arvizu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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).