Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Davis, 467 P.2d 743.

49 citing documents.

State v. Litton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Litton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(“[T]he rule of law governing the modification of a judgment which affects the substantial rights of a defendant requires his presence.”) ¶15 The State also disputes Litton’s assertion that she was denied due process.
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“modification of a judgment which affects the substantial rights of a defendant requires his presence”); ¶ 23 (App. 2005) (“The exercise of sentencing discretion is the trial judge’s, not ours.”).
State v. Forte 214 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Forte 214 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
In addition, our supreme court has stated Rule 26.9 is designed to allow “[a] presentence report based upon personal interview, the defendant[’s] exercis[e of] his right of allocution, and a chance for the judge to personally question and observe the defendant.” Fettis, 136 Ariz. at 59 , 664 P.2d at 209 ; , (defendant must be given opportunity to express why sentence “should not be pronounced against him and why he should have leniency”).
State v. Anderson 827 P.2d 1129 Ariz. 1992
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Pyeatt 659 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Pyeatt 659 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Ellis 572 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1977
State v. Ellis 572 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1977
State v. Davis 562 P.2d 1370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Davis 562 P.2d 1370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Parra 558 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Parra 558 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Stone 523 P.2d 493 Ariz. 1974
State v. Stone 523 P.2d 493 Ariz. 1974
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J—72804 504 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J—72804 504 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Rule 17, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
State v. Renaud 499 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1972
State v. Renaud 499 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1972
State v. Fischer 498 P.2d 147 Ariz. 1972
State v. Fischer 498 P.2d 147 Ariz. 1972
Willmon v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 493 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Willmon v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 493 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
also held that mere irregularity which does not affect substantial rights of the defendant is not a ground for setting aside the sentence.
State v. Davis 492 P.2d 1182 Ariz. 1972
State v. Davis 492 P.2d 1182 Ariz. 1972
State v. Phillips 492 P.2d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Phillips 492 P.2d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Cufio, 12 Ariz.App.
State v. Lerch 490 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1971
State v. Lerch 490 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1971
State v. Brown 489 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1971
State v. Brown 489 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1971
1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), a few of which are as follows: , State v. Laurino, supra
State v. Burchett 484 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1971
State v. Burchett 484 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1971
State v. Mendoza 481 P.2d 844 Ariz. 1971
State v. Mendoza 481 P.2d 844 Ariz. 1971
and even where requested the failure to assign counsel to represent defendant at a preliminary hearing is not error where there is no evidence that the trial is prejudiced thereby.
State v. Brookshire 480 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1971
State v. Brookshire 480 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1971
Bouchard v. United States, 344 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1965)
State v. Andrews 476 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1970
State v. Andrews 476 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1970
State v. Reynolds 470 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1970
State v. Reynolds 470 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1970
1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 ; McCarthy v. United States, supra; , ; , .
State v. Bridges 468 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Bridges 468 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Three recent cases are: , , decided 7 April 1970; , , decided 8 April 1970; , , decided 16 April 1970.
State v. Farley 468 P.2d 379 Ariz. 1970
State v. Farley 468 P.2d 379 Ariz. 1970
have therefore examined-the record as to whether, the court followed the procedure- required for the protection of a. defendant’s rights in “plea bargaining.” , ; , ; , .