Cited by

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

2476 citing documents.

State v. Dickenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel has searched the record, found no arguable question of law, and asked us to review the record for reversible error.
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) Defendant’s counsel has filed a brief indicating he searched the entire record, found no arguable question of law, and asked this court to review the record for fundamental error.
State v. Baker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Santo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Baker 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. Santo 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. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Wise 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. Puma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Benally Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Benally Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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 Erik Gabriel Benally's conviction of aggravated assault, a Class 3 felony; shoplifting, a Class 1 misdemeanor; and refusal to provide name, a Class 2 misdemeanor.
State v. Puma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Puma’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. Wynn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Wynn 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. Day Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Day Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), his counsel has searched the record, found no arguable question of law, and asked us to review the record for reversible error.
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rodriguez 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).
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Nash’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. Gabriel-Gabriel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gabriel-Gabriel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶2 Gabriel’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, he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, and asking us to search the record for fundamental reversible error.
State v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Eaton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Eaton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Eaton’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. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Matthews’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 question of law that was not frivolous, and has requested this court review the entire record for fundamental error.
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Banks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Banks 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. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Johnson’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. Canales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Robinson 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).
State v. Canales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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 arguable question of law that is not frivolous.
State v. Zamorano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Low Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Low Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Counsel for Low 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. Zamorano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel has searched the record, found no arguable question of law, and asked us to review the record for reversible error.
State v. Garth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Garth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel has searched the record, found no arguable question of law, and asked us to review the record for reversible error.
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Gonzales’ 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. Vavages Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Carveiro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Carveiro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Carveiro’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 that after reviewing the entire record on appeal he found no arguable question of law.
State v. Vavages Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Vavages’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 searched the entire record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.
State v. Drew Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Leeds Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Susunkewa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Susunkewa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Susunkewa’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.