Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Carlos Ubaldo Gonzalez, 330 P.3d 969.

25 citing documents.

State v. Bonds Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 8 (App. 2014) (quoting United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980)).
State v. Aquino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Aquino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶10 “We review a denial of a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion, but review constitutional issues de novo.” ¶ 2 (App. 2015) ( ¶ 7 (App. 2014)).
State v. Lietzau 439 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Lietzau 439 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
*841 Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 "We discuss only those facts relevant to the suppression ruling challenged on appeal," State v. Navarro , , ¶ 2, viewing them "in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court's ruling," State v. Gonzalez , , ¶ 2
State v. Lohse 431 P.3d 606 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Lohse 431 P.3d 606 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Gonzalez , , ¶ 2
State v. Green 431 P.3d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Green 431 P.3d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Gonzalez , , ¶ 2
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
“In reviewing a motion to suppress, we consider only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing and view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling.”
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 review a denial of a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion, but review constitutional issues de novo.”
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Holguin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Holguin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 8, United States v. Orman, 486 F.3d 1170, 1175 (9th Cir. 2007), ¶¶ 20-22, see also Wyman, 197 Ariz. at 13, ¶ 8, 3 P.3d at 395 (noting that an agreement to an officer’s initial request
State of Arizona v. Rosa Elene Becerra 366 P.3d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Rosa Elene Becerra 366 P.3d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
In addition, we “view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling.”
State of Arizona v. Daniel Alberto Reyes 364 P.3d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Daniel Alberto Reyes 364 P.3d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Anthony Salcido 362 P.3d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Anthony Salcido 362 P.3d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Rusty James Driscoll 361 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Rusty James Driscoll 361 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015