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. Darling, 506 P.2d 1042.

94 citing documents.

  • State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Allen 207 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Allen 207 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    (remanding to determine if the defendant knew he was waiving his right to confront his accusers and his privilege against self-incrimination by pleading guilty); ¶ 27 , (holding that defendant was entitled to a
  • In Re Eric L. 943 P.2d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • In Re Eric L. 943 P.2d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Aguilar 831 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Aguilar 831 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Diaz 835 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Diaz 835 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Garcia 752 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Garcia 752 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    Cf. Rule 17.2, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; , 506 P.2d *384 1042 (1973).
  • State v. Raseley 715 P.2d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Raseley 715 P.2d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    Cir.1983) (limited remand to state court for determinations of whether the defendant was competent to waive counsel and whether waiver was intelligently made); , (remand for hearing to determine whether appellant knew he was waiving his right against compulsory self-incrimination at the time of entry of his guilty plea); , (remand for hearing to determine if, at the time of the plea of guilty, the defendant knew he was waiving his right to confront his accusers and his privilege against self-inc
  • State v. McVay 641 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. McVay 641 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Evans 610 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Evans 610 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1980
    this court observed that criminal defendants know many things more than the things which are told to them by the judge.
  • State v. Cutler 590 P.2d 444 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Cutler 590 P.2d 444 Ariz. 1979
    However, “if on appeal the complete record is deficient as to some of the matters required by Boykin, but otherwise reflects] a voluntary, knowing, uncoerced plea and it appears that the record could be expanded to reflect the truth of what happened, the matter will be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.” , See also, , , North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct.
  • State v. Brooks 586 P.2d 1270 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Brooks 586 P.2d 1270 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Timpson 581 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Timpson 581 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Murrillo 569 P.2d 1339 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Murrillo 569 P.2d 1339 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Henry 562 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Henry 562 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Mitchell 554 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Mitchell 554 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Lawonn 547 P.2d 467 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Lawonn 547 P.2d 467 Ariz. 1976
    1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)
  • State v. Snyder 544 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Snyder 544 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Huizar 543 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Huizar 543 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1975
    we held that the presentence report or the reporter’s transcript on the preliminary hearing was part of the extended record for satisfying the requirements of Boy-kin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct.
  • State v. Munoz 543 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Munoz 543 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Carr 543 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Carr 543 P.2d 441 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Fox 542 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Fox 542 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Schlarp 541 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Rodriquez 541 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Rodriquez 541 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Schlarp 541 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Rodriguez 540 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Rodriguez 540 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1975
    an equal responsibility on the part of the attorney for the state to make sure that the court does not omit any legitimate avenue of inquiry which will assure that the record made at the time of the plea of guilty satisfies all the requirements of Boykin, supra, and that resort to the extended record will not have to be made either by the trial court or by this court on appeal.”
  • State v. Tiznado 540 P.2d 122 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Tiznado 540 P.2d 122 Ariz. 1975
    Boykin v. Alabama, supra