DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Brown, 115 P.3d 128.

26 citing documents.

  • Dcs v. Hon. stocking-tate/p.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Dcs v. Hon. stocking-tate/p.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    of Maricopa, ¶ 4 (App. 2004), and the issue raised is purely a legal question, with statewide importance, ¶ 6 (App. 2005).
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: JT 4 Smith’s affirmed in pertinent part, is misplaced.
  • State v. Enriquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Enriquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 24, ¶ 26, (citing Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 297, 310 (2004)) (“[T]he Sixth Amendment right to jury trial with respect to an aggravating factor necessary to impose a sentence remains inviolate unless .
  • Ceasar v. Hon. campbell/state 336 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Ceasar v. Hon. campbell/state 336 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State ex rel. Thomas v. Duncan 165 P.3d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State ex rel. Thomas v. Duncan 165 P.3d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    -38, ¶¶ 5-6 , -32 (App.2005).
  • State v. Le Noble 164 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Le Noble 164 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    See Ward, 211 Ariz. at 164, ¶ 17 , 118 P.3d at 1128 ( ¶ 12 , (stating that a defendant’s waiver must be clear and indicate an intentional waiver of a known right)).
  • Heath v. Kiger 158 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Heath v. Kiger 158 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    State v. Brown (McMullen)
  • Lincoln v. Holt 156 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Lincoln v. Holt 156 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    -38, ¶¶ 5-6 , -32 (App.2005).
  • Olin Gene Taylor, John Adrian Johnson v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Taylor v. Cruikshank 148 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Taylor v. Cruikshank 148 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Olin Gene Taylor, John Adrian Johnson v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • P.M. v. Gould 136 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • P.M. v. Gould 136 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    JURISDICTION ¶ 12 When a party asserts a privilege against a discovery order, special action jurisdiction lies because the party has “no equally plain, speedy, or adequate remedy by appeal.” ¶ 5 , (citing Ariz. R.P.
  • State v. Brown 129 P.3d 947 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. Brown 129 P.3d 947 Ariz. 2006
    ) ) __________________________________) Appeal from the Superior Court in Santa Cruz County The Honorable Michael Brown, Retired Judge AFFIRMED IN RELEVANT PART AND REMANDED ________________________________________________________________ Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division Two P.3d 128 (App. 2005) AFFIRMED IN RELEVANT PART ________________________________________________________________ TERRY GODDARD, ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL Phoenix By Randall M. Howe, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Sect
  • State v. Ward 118 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Ward 118 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005