Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Williker, 491 P.2d 465.

49 citing documents.

State v. Seats 638 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Geiger 552 P.2d 1191 Ariz. 1976
State v. Geiger 552 P.2d 1191 Ariz. 1976
State v. Offing 551 P.2d 556 Ariz. 1976
State v. Offing 551 P.2d 556 Ariz. 1976
1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)
State v. McGhee 551 P.2d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. McGhee 551 P.2d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Hickey 521 P.2d 614 Ariz. 1974
State v. Hickey 521 P.2d 614 Ariz. 1974
State v. Miller 518 P.2d 127 Ariz. 1974
State v. Miller 518 P.2d 127 Ariz. 1974
State v. Tucker 517 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1974
State v. Tucker 517 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1974
State v. Howell 506 P.2d 1059 Ariz. 1973
State v. Carman 506 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Darling 506 P.2d 1042 Ariz. 1973
State v. Carman 506 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Moreno, 16 Ariz.App.
State v. Darling 506 P.2d 1042 Ariz. 1973
State v. Howell 506 P.2d 1059 Ariz. 1973
State v. Richard 505 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1973
State v. Richard 505 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1973
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. Weber 502 P.2d 173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Weber 502 P.2d 173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
and that these cases furnish the answers to our questions.
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. Ferrell 499 P.2d 109 Ariz. 1972
State v. Ferrell 499 P.2d 109 Ariz. 1972
that our courts, to comply with Boykin , must find the plea of guilty to be made voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly.
State v. Durham 498 P.2d 149 Ariz. 1972
State v. Durham 498 P.2d 149 Ariz. 1972
It is adherence to the spirit of Federal Rule 11 and not necessarily the literal observance of its provisions that is required by the mandate of 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. Ross 495 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1972
State v. Ross 495 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1972
State v. Andrus 495 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Andrus 495 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
We find that the trial court correctly determined that the plea in the case at bar was entered voluntarily
State v. Bartky 493 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Bartky 493 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Hunt 493 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Hunt 493 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
determined that in order to comply with Boykin, the trial court must find the plea of guilty to be made voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly, and further that strict compliance with Rule 11, Fed.R.
State v. Liden 493 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Liden 493 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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. Rincon 492 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Rincon 492 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
The area of pleas of guilty and the factual basis for the entry of a

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by