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. Pierce, 494 P.2d 696.

27 citing documents.

  • In re the Appeal in Pima County Delinquency Action No. 90101-1 744 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • In re the Appeal in Pima County Delinquency Action No. 90101-1 744 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Little 590 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Little 590 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1979
    You ought to be provided that opportunity to do so, and I would reconsider it if you felt there was some basis for doing so.” Rule 26.6 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., permits both sides, with certain exceptions not applicable to this matter, to view all presentence reports available to the sentencing judge prior to sentencing, see State v. Pierce, 108 Ariz. *381 174 , and it was error not to do so in the instant case.
  • State v. Weatherholt 589 P.2d 883 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Weatherholt 589 P.2d 883 Ariz. 1979
    this court has required full disclosure of the contents of the presentence report subject to a few defined exceptions.
  • State v. Martinez 588 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Martinez 588 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    At the hearing on appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief however, Judge Birdsall said “I can’t pretend to remember at this point what we discussed, but I can assure you that if there was any new factual information that came to the Court, I would have told counsel about it.” The current version of Rule 26.6
  • State v. Pitts 548 P.2d 1202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Pitts 548 P.2d 1202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    the Arizona Supreme Court stated that “We do not include the recommendations of the probation officer as to disposition or sentence as being a part of the report which must be disclosed.” Thereafter, on September 1, 1973, the Supreme Court adopted Rules of Criminal Procedure which included Rule
  • State v. Garcia 542 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Garcia 542 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1975
    Rule 26.4, Rule 26.6, 1973 Rules of Criminal Procedure
  • State v. Domme 532 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Domme 532 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1975
    similar requirements were adopted, we find nothing in the presentence report of which defendant’s counsel was unaware during the proceedings.
  • State v. Corral 521 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. Corral 521 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. Morales 520 P.2d 1136 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Morales 520 P.2d 1136 Ariz. 1974
    Furthermore, appellant’s
  • State v. Fassler 503 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Steed 501 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Steed 501 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Hubbard 499 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Hubbard 499 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1972
    In his supplemental brief, the defendant raises only one contention; i. e., that the defendant was denied due process of law by reason of the fact that the court based the sentence on “a biased hearsay presentence report.” Our basic problem in this case comes about because the court, , changed the established law in this jurisdiction on the question of the availability of the presentence report to defendant.
  • State v. Raybould 498 P.2d 458 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Raybould 498 P.2d 458 Ariz. 1972
    In light of the confusion apparent in the factual setting of the sentence, especially where appellate review is concerned, , the sentence heretofore imposed is vacated.