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. Shumaker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Defendant’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), advising this Court that after a search of the entire appellate record, no arguable ground exists for reversal.
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Smith’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) P.2d 878 (1969), advising that after a search of the entire appellate record, she found no arguable question of law.
  • State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Walsh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Walsh’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), certifying that following a diligent search of the record, she was unable to find any arguable question of law that was not frivolous.
  • State v. MacIas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), defense counsel has searched the record, found no arguable question of law, and asked that we review the record for reversible error.
  • State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Lopez 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) P.2d 878 (1969).
  • State v. Bailey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Sayegh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Bailey 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. Sayegh 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 342 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Brown 342 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Brown’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. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Faccio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Faccio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Faccio’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.
  • State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    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), P.2d 878 (1969), following Allen James Robinson's convictions of first-degree murder, a Class 1 dangerous felony; drive-by shooting, a Class 2 dangerous felony; and aggravated assault, a Class 3 dangerous felony.
  • State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶2 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969).
  • State v. Pino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Richards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Pino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), defense counsel searched the record, found no arguable question of law, and asked that we review the record for reversible error.
  • State v. Richards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    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 error or arguable question of law.
  • State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Defendant’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), advising this Court that after a search of the entire appellate record, no arguable ground exists for reversal.
  • State v. Navarrette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Portillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Portillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    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. Navarrette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    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. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error.
  • State v. Centeno-Sarabia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Laakmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Laakmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) P.2d 878 (1969).
  • State v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    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. Centeno-Sarabia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Counsel for Defendant filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), advising that after searching the record on appeal, he was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal.
  • State v. Penn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Penn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Penn’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.
  • State v. Buchanan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Patino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Patino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    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. Buchanan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    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. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶2 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969).
  • State v. Oddo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Wickham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Wickham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Wickham’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) P.2d 878 (1969), advising that after searching the entire appellate record, no arguable question of law was found.
  • State v. Oddo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Oddo’s defense counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), asking this Court to review the record for fundamental error.