DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Sullivan, 482 P.2d 861.

36 citing documents.

  • State v. Shrum 203 P.3d 1175 Ariz. 2009
  • State v. Shrum 203 P.3d 1175 Ariz. 2009
    See, P.2d 861 (1971); P.2d 842 (1971).
  • State v. Vita Lashona Flowers 768 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Vita Lashona Flowers 768 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    Reidhead, 152 Ariz. at 234 , 731 P.2d at 129
  • State v. Reidhead 731 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Reidhead 731 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    While Myers held that a defendant must move to set aside a plea to preserve issues for appeal
  • Jordan v. Jordan 643 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1982
  • Jordan v. Jordan 643 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1982
    Between the date on which the first appeal became final and the decision of the second appeal, we held in a different *42 case, , that an appellate court could determine the Boykin issue without first requiring defendant to petition the trial court to set aside the plea.
  • State v. Norman 574 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Norman 574 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • 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. Zarate 514 P.2d 715 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Zarate 514 P.2d 715 Ariz. 1973
    This Court has held, , that in Arizona on a guilty plea the record must be supported by a factual basis for the plea.
  • State v. Maxwell 508 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Maxwell 508 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    On March 25, 1971, the Arizona Supreme Court, , specifically held that an appellate court could determine, in a plea bargain setting, whether a defendant’s plea of guilty was in compliance with the requirements of Boykin v. Alabama, supra, without first making a motion in the trial court to set aside the plea, and overruled all prior decision
  • State v. Durham 498 P.2d 149 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Durham 498 P.2d 149 Ariz. 1972
    533 and 535, , 418 and 420 (1971)
  • State v. Chrishon 497 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Chrishon 497 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)
  • State v. Williker 491 P.2d 465 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Williker 491 P.2d 465 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Lerch 490 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Lerch 490 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1971
    Recently, , held that it was not necessary for a defendant to first petition the trial court to set aside his guilty plea before an appeal could be entertained.
  • 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
  • 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. Wroble 486 P.2d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State v. Wroble 486 P.2d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • 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
    and State v. Garcia, 14 Ariz.App.
  • 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
    * * * ” The Arizona Supreme Court, , sustained the validity of a guilty plea under circumstances practically identical to the case at bench.
  • 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
    answer the question presented by the motion to suspend and remand.