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. Johnson, 484 P.2d 1.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Reynolds 511 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Reynolds 511 P.2d 615 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Terrell 506 P.2d 1029 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Terrell 506 P.2d 1029 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Adcox 503 P.2d 945 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Adcox 503 P.2d 945 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. St. John 503 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. St. John 503 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1972
    We have held Boykin is not retroactive, , and that preBoykin cases will be judged “with reference to the basic fairness of these proceedings rather than to rigid standards (of Boykin) subsequently promulgated of which the trial judge could not have been aware.” , 484-P.2d 1, 3 (1971).
  • State v. Endreson 498 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Endreson 498 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1972
    Rather, the taking of the plea must be judged with reference to the basic fairness of the proceedings, , , filed 8 June 1972
  • State v. Reynolds 497 P.2d 812 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Reynolds 497 P.2d 812 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Brady 493 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Brady 493 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Washington 493 P.2d 493 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Washington 493 P.2d 493 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Ponce 492 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Ponce 492 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Ortiz 492 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Ortiz 492 P.2d 397 Ariz. 1972
    ****** “ , we indicated that the trial court is not required to detail all possible ramifications of sentencing under a plea of guilty, especially when defendant is represented by counsel.”
  • State v. Tritle 490 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Tritle 490 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    a consecutive sentence situation, and by State v. Ross, 15 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Burton 490 P.2d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Burton 490 P.2d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Ross 487 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Ross 487 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    the Supreme Court considered the same question, in a pre-Boykin setting, and held that the trial court was not required to give a detailed statement of all the possible consequences of a guilty plea, “especially when defendant is represented by counsel.” (at p. 3 of 484 P.2d).