Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown, 310 P.3d 29.

38 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ismael Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
(App. 14 STATE v. RODRIGUEZ Opinion of the Court 2013).
State v. Baltierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Baltierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
While we “review the court’s ultimate legal conclusion[s] de novo,” 6 ¶ 10 (App. 2021), we view the evidence “in the light most favorable to sustaining the court’s ruling.” ¶ 4 (App. 2013).
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 28 (App. 2013) (“Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief .
State v. Duarte 438 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Duarte 438 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Malone 425 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Puente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Puente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Urrea 398 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Urrea 398 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
(objection on one ground does not preserve issue on another ground).
State v. Culver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Culver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In Re J.U. 384 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
In Re J.U. 384 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Hollins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hollins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶8 In reviewing orders on motions to suppress evidence, we consider only evidence presented during the suppression hearing, ¶ 4 (App. 2013), and view the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling
State v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Evans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Condiff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Condiff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
We look only at the evidence presented to the trial court during the suppression hearing, ¶ 4 (App. 2013), and view the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, ¶ 2 (App. 2010).
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Bennett 351 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bennett 351 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“In our review, we look only to the evidence presented at the suppression hearing and view it in the light most favorable to sustaining the court’s ruling.” , 156 ¶ 4
State of Arizona v. Jose Raul Juarez-Orci 342 P.3d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Jose Raul Juarez-Orci 342 P.3d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
P. 21.3(c); ¶¶ 19–20, (untimely objection first raised in motion for new trial does not preserve issue for appeal).
State v. Notice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Notice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
.” ¶ 4, (citation omitted).
State v. Jacot 330 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jacot 330 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
We look “only to the evidence presented at the suppression hearing and view it in the light most favorable to sustaining the court’s ruling.” ¶ 4
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
We look “only to the evidence presented at the suppression hearing and view it in the light most favorable to sustaining the court’s ruling.” ¶ 4

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by