Cited by

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

2476 citing documents.

State v. Felix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Mata Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Felix 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. Mata 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 arguable question of law that is not frivolous.
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hernandez 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. Sutton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Alcocer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Alcocer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
STATE v. ALCOCER Decision of the Court 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. Sutton 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. Garcia 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 arguable question of law that is not frivolous.
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cardenas-Salcido Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Morales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cortez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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. Cortez 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. Morales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Counsel for Morales 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. Cardenas-Salcido Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
K E S S L E R, Presiding Judge: ¶1 Jose Cardenas-Salcido, Jr. (―Cardenas‖) filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), following his conviction of transportation of a dangerous drug for sale, a class 2 felony.
State v. Sutton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Buggs’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. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Counsel for Green 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, she was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal.
State v. Sutton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sutton’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. Herrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Millanes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Beucler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Beucler 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 diligent search of the record, he was unable to find any arguable question of law that is not frivolous.
State v. Herrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), counsel for defendant has advised us that, after searching the entire record, she has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court to conduct an Anders review of the record.
State v. Millanes 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. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Chee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Chee 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. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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. Layman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Layman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
CONCLUSION ¶6 We affirm Layman's conviction and sentence.2 :gsh 2 After reviewing the State's answering brief, defense counsel moved to withdraw the opening brief to allow Layman to file a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969).
State v. Cummings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Flores Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Montero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cummings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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. Flores Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Flores’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. Montero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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 2014
State v. Matzkanin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Matzkanin 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 formed the opinion that no viable appeal issues exist.
State v. Summers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Counsel for Summers 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, although he does direct us to three statements the prosecutor made during closing argument.