DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Laurino, 480 P.2d 342.

45 citing documents.

  • State v. Smith 904 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Smith 904 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    6 Currently, it remains clear that an accused may waive the constitutional right to counsel, , the right to appear and defend in person, , the right to confront witnesses, , the right to a jury trial, , cert.
  • State v. Moreno 655 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Wasserott 516 P.2d 318 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Wasserott 516 P.2d 318 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Carman 506 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Carman 506 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    State v. Moreno, 16 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Jameson 501 P.2d 375 Ariz. 1972
  • 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. Alabama, supra.
  • State v. Phillips 498 P.2d 199 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Phillips 498 P.2d 199 Ariz. 1972
    this court held that a defendant need not expressly waive those rights, nevertheless, in the instant case the record does not show even an implied waiver.
  • State v. Durham 498 P.2d 149 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Durham 498 P.2d 149 Ariz. 1972
    1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) extended the procedural requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to the state courts, , , , we recently had occasion to explain that: “It is, of course, clear from Boykin, supra, that if the plea of guilty satisfies Federal Rule 11 then the requirements of Boykin, supra, have also been met.
  • 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
    in which the defendant therein claimed that the failure of the court to inform the defendant that a guilty plea waived his right to jury trial and confrontation of witnesses rendered the plea invalid, the Supreme Court said: “It is true that when a plea of guilty is entered in a criminal trial t
  • State v. Linne 497 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Linne 497 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    Passing upon the question of specific waiver, , said: “It is true that when a plea of guilty is entered in a criminal trial there is a waiver of certain basic federal constitutional rights.
  • State v. Brown 493 P.2d 915 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Brown 493 P.2d 915 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. Zaye 492 P.2d 392 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Zaye 492 P.2d 392 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Williker 491 P.2d 465 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Williker 491 P.2d 465 Ariz. 1971
    And also stating that, “[t]his case [Boykin], in effect, extended the procedural requirements of Rule 11 * * * to the state courts.”
  • State v. Kuhlman 488 P.2d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Kuhlman 488 P.2d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    has held that Boykin in effect extended the procedural requirements of Rule 11, Fed.
  • State v. Brown 489 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Brown 489 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1971
    State v. Miller, 11 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Campbell 488 P.2d 968 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Campbell 488 P.2d 968 Ariz. 1971
    we construed the case of Boykin v. Alabama, supra, to, in effect, extend the procedural requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to the state courts.
  • State v. Burrows 486 P.2d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Tellez 486 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Burrows 486 P.2d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    1709 , 23 L. Ed.2d 274 (1969) 1 The State contends that these two rights need not be specifically and' expressly waived by the defendant prior to entry of a guilty plea
  • State v. Tellez 486 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) ; , State v. Patterson, 14 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Jackson 485 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Jackson 485 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    1 This is based upon the procedural requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which, , have been applicable in Arizona since the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct.
  • State v. Jackson 485 P.2d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Jackson 485 P.2d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    Appellant argues that Boykin, supra, and Rule 11, Fed.R.Crim.P., , requires the trial judge to tell the defendant the legal elements of the crime to which he is pleading.
  • State v. McCallister 483 P.2d 558 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. McCallister 483 P.2d 558 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Sutherland 483 P.2d 576 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Sutherland 483 P.2d 576 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    * * * The court shall not enter a judgment upon a plea of guilty unless it is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea.” , recognizes that the United States Supreme Court has “ * * * in effect, extended the procedural requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to the state courts.” On appeal the defendant urges that the trial court must ascertain that there is a factual basis for the plea pri
  • State v. Patterson 481 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Patterson 481 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971