Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. McCallister, 483 P.2d 558.
- State v. Wesley 640 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1982
- State v. Wesley 640 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1982
- State v. Fox 542 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1975
-
State v. Fox
542 P.2d 800
Ariz. 1975
State v. Washington, 108 Ariz. Ill, , State v. Gutierrez, 20 Ariz.App.
- State v. Gutierrez 512 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
- State v. Gutierrez 512 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
- State v. Richard 505 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Richard 505 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Laing 504 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
-
State v. Laing
504 P.2d 507
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
453 , , ; State v. Brown, 15 Ariz.App.
- State v. Schulenberg 503 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
-
State v. Schulenberg
503 P.2d 411
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Miller, 15 Ariz.App.
- State v. Jameson 501 P.2d 375 Ariz. 1972
-
Criticized
State v. Jameson
501 P.2d 375
Ariz. 1972
"MR. JAMESON: Guilty.'' Although we have declined to follow a strict interpretation of Boykin, supra, particularly where the defendant is represented by attorney at the time, , , , , still the record must show that the defendant knowingly waived certain basic fundamental rights as set forth in Boykin v. Ala
- State v. Rodriguez 499 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
-
State v. Rodriguez
499 P.2d 167
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
See, , , State v. Smith, 13 Ariz.App.
- State v. Hudson 497 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
- State v. Hudson 497 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
- State v. Dominguez 494 P.2d 1337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
-
State v. Dominguez
494 P.2d 1337
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Ross, 15 Ariz.App.
- State v. Brown 493 P.2d 915 Ariz. 1972
-
State v. Brown
493 P.2d 915
Ariz. 1972
See State v. Laurino, supra; , , for cases with closely allied facts.
- State v. Washington 493 P.2d 493 Ariz. 1972
- State v. Washington 493 P.2d 493 Ariz. 1972
- State v. Moreno 492 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
-
State v. Moreno
492 P.2d 440
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Brown, 15 Ariz.App.
- 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. Williker 491 P.2d 465 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Williker 491 P.2d 465 Ariz. 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
Similarly, , considered an appeal by a defendant convicted under § 13-653 A.R.S.
- State v. Brown 489 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1971
-
State v. Brown
489 P.2d 12
Ariz. 1971
1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), a few of which are as follows: , State v. Laurino, supra
- State v. Campbell 488 P.2d 968 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Campbell 488 P.2d 968 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Miller 488 P.2d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- State v. Miller 488 P.2d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- State v. Brown 485 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- State v. Brown 485 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- State v. Celaya 484 P.2d 7 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Celaya 484 P.2d 7 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Johnson 484 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1971
-
State v. Johnson
484 P.2d 1
Ariz. 1971
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.