Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Saenz, 4 P.3d 1030.

30 citing documents.

State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“Evidence is not newly discovered unless it was unknown to the trial court, the defendant, or counsel at the time of trial and neither the defendant nor counsel could have known about its existence by the exercise of due diligence.” ¶ 13 (App. 2000) (citations omitted).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
P. 32.13(c); ¶ 7 (App. 2000).
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Thus, a defendant may not proceed under Rule 24.2 when, as here, “a judgment of conviction and sentence ha[s] not yet been entered.” ¶ 6 (App. 2000).
State v. Lipsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Lipsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. King 480 P.3d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. King 480 P.3d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
if “newly discovered material facts probably exist, and those facts probably would have changed the judgment or sentence.” “[R]equests for 24 STATE v. KING Brown, J., dissenting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence are disfavored and should be granted cautiously.” ¶ 13 (App. 2000).
State Ex Rel Adel v. Hon. Hannah jr/ashley Buckman 472 P.3d 1100 Ariz. 2020
State Ex Rel Adel v. Hon. Hannah jr/ashley Buckman 472 P.3d 1100 Ariz. 2020
¶ 6 (App. 2000) (“Nor could [defendant] have proceeded under Rule 24.2 because a judgment of conviction and sentence had not yet been entered.
State v. Sutter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Sutter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 6 (App. 2000) (moving to vacate a judgment before the court has entered judgment and sentence, is premature and cannot proceed); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See Hickle, 129 Ariz. at 332; ¶ 6 (App. 2000) (“Nor could [defendant] have proceeded under Rule 24.2 because a judgment of conviction and sentence had not yet been entered.”).
State v. Larsgard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Larsgard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
P. 32.1(e), 32.2(a)–(b); –53 (1989); ¶ 13 (App. 2000).
State v. Calderon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Calderon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Terranova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Terranova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Avington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Avington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.1(e); ¶ 7 (App. 2000) (evidence not newly discovered unless "it could not have been discovered and produced at trial through reasonable diligence").
State v. Lucero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Lucero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-91, ¶ 13, -34 (App. 2000) (discussing the requirement that a defendant must have exercised due diligence for “newly discovered evidence” to result in a new trial); (recognizing that all elements must be satisfied to establish a
State v. Stallings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Stallings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. James Lee Hess 290 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. James Lee Hess 290 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
s entitled to relief on a claim of newly discovered evidence if he or she “establish[es] that the evidence was discovered after trial although it existed before trial; that it could not have been discovered and produced at trial through reasonable diligence; that it is neither cumulative nor impeaching; that it is material; and that it probably would have changed the verdict.” see also Ariz. R. Crim.