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. Gause, 541 P.2d 396.

37 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Bobby Charles Purcell 526 P.3d 146 Ariz. 2023
  • State of Arizona v. Bobby Charles Purcell 526 P.3d 146 Ariz. 2023
  • State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    And, a petitioner “must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be denied relief.” (); ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (holding a petition for review incorporating trial court filings “utterly fails to comply with Rule 32.9” and rejecting summarily the claims raised), ¶ 10 (2002); Canion
  • State of Arizona v. Della Lisa Vermuele Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • State of Arizona v. Della Lisa Vermuele Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    See State v. Gause, 112 Ariz. 296, 297, (observing that former Rule 32.9(a) specifically required motion for rehearing before trial court to preserve appellate claims).
  • Montgomery v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Montgomery v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    Article 2, section 24, of the Arizona Constitution guarantees to the accused in criminal prosecutions “the right to an appeal in all cases.” Rule 32, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, although separate and apart from the right to appeal, , , cert.
  • State v. Bortz 821 P.2d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Bortz 821 P.2d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Grier 707 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Grier 707 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1985
    “In pursuing post-conviction remedies, petitioner is limited to procedures set forth in the rule.” , cert.
  • State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
    Rule 32 is separate and apart from the right to appeal, , cert.
  • State v. Grange 635 P.2d 843 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Pope 635 P.2d 846 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Pope 635 P.2d 846 Ariz. 1981
    cert, denied 425 U.S. 915, 96 S.Ct.
  • State v. Grange 635 P.2d 843 Ariz. 1981
    Rule 32.9(a) specifically requires that the petitioner timely move the court for rehearing in order that the trial court have a last chance to correct any errors or omissions.” , cert, denied, 425 U.S. 915 , 96 S.Ct.
  • State v. Pope 635 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Pope 635 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Grange 635 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Grange 635 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    cert, denied, 425 U.S. 915 , 96 S.Ct.
  • State v. Byers 613 P.2d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Byers 613 P.2d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Salazar 595 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Salazar 595 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Savage 573 P.2d 1388 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Bender 569 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Bender 569 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    The distinction between the availability of post-conviction relief after a timely compliance with the filing provisions of Rule 32 in a collateral attack on a conviction as opposed to affording a defendant an initial review of his conviction or sentence through a delayed appeal was succinctly pointed out by Justice Holohan, , when he stated: “Post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32 of the Rules of Criminal Proce *376 dure 1973 is a remedy separate and apart from the right to appeal.
  • State v. White 553 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. White 553 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    ” (emphasis added) , the petitioner, who was the defendant in that case, filed a Rule 32 petition seeking a new trial.
  • In re the Appeal in Maricopa County 549 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Matter of App. in Maricopa Cty., Juv. Act. 549 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Matter of App. in Maricopa Cty., Juv. Act. 549 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • In re the Appeal in Maricopa County 549 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Stelter 543 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Stelter 543 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    On October 28, 1975, this Court entered its order dismissing said petition on the ground that no time-ly motion for rehearing had been filed in the trial court, as required by Rules 32.9(a) and (c), ibid, , as a result of which this Court had no jurisdiction over said petition.