Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Nelson Ivan Boteo-Flores, 288 P.3d 111.

55 citing documents.

State v. Yohannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
L.H./d.L. v. Hon culbertson/ballestero 550 P.3d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
L.H./d.L. v. Hon culbertson/ballestero 550 P.3d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
v. HON CULBERTSON/BALLESTERO Opinion of the Court [appellee’s] failure to argue them below.” ¶ 7 (App. 2012).
State of Arizona v. Whytte Dragun Duncan 548 P.3d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Whytte Dragun Duncan 548 P.3d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Jose Luis Jimenez 534 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Jose Luis Jimenez 534 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State v. Santillanes 522 P.3d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Santillanes 522 P.3d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
The court’s decision will be upheld if it is “legally correct for any reason.” ¶ 7 (App. 2012).
Szeto v. Aps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Szeto v. Aps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 7 (App. 2012) (“[W]aiver is a procedural concept that we do not rigidly employ in a mechanical fashion, and we may use our 2 Decision may also be found at US W. Commc’ns, Inc., Decision No. 57794 at 56 (April 2, 1992), https://docket.images.azcc.gov/H000000728.
State v. Healer 440 P.3d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Healer 440 P.3d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
See Vera , , ¶ 9, ; State v. Boteo-Flores , , ¶ 7
Coburn v. Rhodig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Coburn v. Rhodig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brissette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Brissette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
We must affirm the superior court’s ruling “if legally correct for any reason and, in doing so, we may address the [S]tate’s arguments to uphold the court’s ruling even if those arguments otherwise could be deemed waived by the [S]tate’s failure to argue them below.” ¶ 7 (App. 2012).
State v. Stamm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Stamm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
He contends the recordings should have been suppressed according to the exclusionary rule codified at 2 Because we must affirm the trial court’s ruling if legally correct for any reason, ¶ 7 (App. 2012), we do not address Stamm’s
Atkins v. Snell & Wilmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Atkins v. Snell & Wilmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(declining to reach the remaining issues once the court found grounds for resolution,); ¶ 7 (App. 2012) (stating an appellate court will uphold the superior court’s ruling if correct for any reason).
Ibeabuchi v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ibeabuchi v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“We are obliged to affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason.”); State v. Boteo–Flores, ¶ 7 (App. 2012) (appellate court will uphold ruling if correct for any reason).
State v. Starkovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Starkovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Diaz v. Van Wie 426 P.3d 1214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Diaz v. Van Wie 426 P.3d 1214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See State v. Boteo-Flores , , 553, ¶ 7, , 113 (App. 2012).
State v. Medina 418 P.3d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Medina 418 P.3d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See State v. Boteo-Flores , , ¶ 7, , 113 (App. 2012) (trial court may be affirmed for any legally correct reason); see also State v. Rodriguez , , ¶ 16, , 1009-10 (1998) (party only entitled to jury instruction reasonably supported by evidence).
State v. Mortemore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mortemore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“We are required to affirm a trial court’s ruling if legally correct for any reason[.]” ¶ 7 (App. 2012).
State v. Weakland 418 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Weakland 418 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
2 State v. Boteo-Flores , , ¶ 7
State v. Hernandez 399 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Hernandez 399 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
However, "[w]e are required to affirm a trial court's ruling if legally correct for any reason and, in doing so, we may address the state's arguments to uphold the court's ruling even if those arguments otherwise could be deemed waived by the state’s failure to argue them below.”
State of Arizona v. Thomas L. Dean 388 P.3d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State of Arizona v. Thomas L. Dean 388 P.3d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
P. 16.2(b); Hyde, 186 Ariz. at 266, 268 , 921 P.2d at 669, 671 (in challenging search warrant, defendant bears burden of production but state bears burden of persuasion); State v. Boteo-Flores, 230 * , cf. United States v. Dickler, 64 F.3d 818, 832 (3d Cir. 1995) (“[Wjhere the government has the burden of production and persuasion ...
State of Arizona v. Matthew Thomas Snyder 382 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Matthew Thomas Snyder 382 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Francisco Flores Huez, Jr. 380 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Francisco Flores Huez, Jr. 380 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
“We are required to affirm a trial court’s ruling if legally correct for any reason and, in doing so, we may address the state’s arguments to uphold the court’s ruling even if those arguments otherwise could be deemed waived by the state’s failure to argue them below.”
State of Arizona v. Nicholas Olaf Kjolsrud, Loni Kay Kambitsch 371 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Nicholas Olaf Kjolsrud, Loni Kay Kambitsch 371 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
(addressing issues identified in state’s brief); ¶¶ 6-9 , -14 (App.2012) (reaching good-faith question when argument squarely raised on appeal).
Azore, LLC v. Bassett 341 P.3d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014