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. Wheatley, 479 P.2d 409.

28 citing documents.

  • State v. Smith 506 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Smith 506 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • 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. 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. Linne 497 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Linne 497 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Gantt 492 P.2d 1199 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Gantt 492 P.2d 1199 Ariz. 1972
  • 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
    State v. McCallister, supra, at p. 560 of 483 P.2d
  • 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. Nelson 484 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Nelson 484 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    These are matters to be raised at the preliminary hearing, or at trial.” See also, , ; State v. Sutherland, 14 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Johnson 484 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Johnson 484 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Garcia 483 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Garcia 483 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct.
  • State v. Leuck 481 P.2d 842 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Leuck 481 P.2d 842 Ariz. 1971
    Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220 , 47 S.Ct.
  • State v. Kendall 481 P.2d 265 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Kendall 481 P.2d 265 Ariz. 1971
    160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 ; , , , .
  • State v. Hogue 479 P.2d 417 Ariz. 1971
  • Maxwell v. State 479 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Hogue 479 P.2d 417 Ariz. 1971
    When his plea is viewed in light of the evidence against him, which substantially negated his claim of innocence and which further provided a means by which the fudge could test whether the plea was being intelligently entered, * * * its validity cannot be seriously questioned.” [Emphasis Added]
  • Maxwell v. State 479 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1971