Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Application of Buccheri, 431 P.2d 91.

33 citing documents.

Lewis v. Superior Court Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Lewis v. Superior Court Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See Application of Buccheri, (stating “[s]ubstance” is “of the essence” notwithstanding that a filing is “labeled otherwise,” and determining petitions contesting detention in prison were collateral attacks on the defendant’s conviction and sentence).
Stevenson v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles 510 P.2d 384 Ariz. 1973
Stevenson v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles 510 P.2d 384 Ariz. 1973
State v. Smith 478 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Smith 478 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Application of Buccheri, , Smith v. People, 162 Colo.
State v. Miller 465 P.2d 594 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Miller 465 P.2d 594 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
1009 (1927) ; , ; and Application of Buccheri
State v. Jelks 461 P.2d 473 Ariz. 1969
State v. Casey 460 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Casey 460 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Notwithstanding the tolerance with which appellate courts view pro se applications for relief, Application of Buccheri, , we cannot construe the defendant’s applications as falling within the mandate of Dennis v. United States, supra.
Bayham v. Fields 455 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Bayham v. Fields 455 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Brown 451 P.2d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Brown 451 P.2d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Application of Buccheri, , State v. Churton, 9 Ariz.App.
State v. Popejoy 450 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Popejoy 450 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
830 ; Scott v. United States, 6th Cir., 349 F.2d 641, 643 ; and Application of Buccheri, , .
Application of Hathcock 450 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Application of Hathcock 450 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
*180 and Application of Buccheri
State v. Jennings 448 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1969
State v. Jennings 448 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1969
830 ; Scott v. United States, 6th Cir., 349 F.2d 641, 643 ; and Application of Buccheri, , .
State v. Churton 448 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Churton 448 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
See, e. g., , Application of Buccheri
Eyman v. Superior Court in and for County of Pinal 448 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Eyman v. Superior Court in and for County of Pinal 448 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Weston v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 442 P.2d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Weston v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 442 P.2d 881 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Those were not my words.” In denying relief to the petitioner, the habeas court apparently concluded that: “The plea of guilty made under such circumstances as to constitute it reliable and trustworthy evidence of the accused’s guilty of the offense with which he was charged.” Application of Buccheri
Cooper v. State ex rel. Eyman 438 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Barron v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 437 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Cooper v. State ex rel. Eyman 438 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Barron v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 437 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
We find no error in the lower court’s denial of relief since the appellants have set forth no facts, see Application of Buccheri, , which indicate the attorney’s services were so substandard as to render his representation a farce or a sham.
Application of Parham 431 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Application of Parham 431 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
r’s attorney assured him that the agreement of probation and to drop all other charges was in writing, signed by the deputy county attorney, was in the attorney’s possession, and if the same was not carried out, the attorney would appeal “ * * * all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court * * Considering that the granting of writs of certiorari was more appropriate relief, see Application of Buccheri, , (released this date), this court issued a writ of certiorari both to the clerk of the superior cou