Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ross, 495 P.2d 841.

27 citing documents.

In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-86715 594 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-86715 594 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Cuthbertson 570 P.2d 1075 Ariz. 1977
State v. Cuthbertson 570 P.2d 1075 Ariz. 1977
State v. Drozd 569 P.2d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Drozd 569 P.2d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)] purposes according to State v. Ross [ , ] controlling precedent at the time of [the defendant’s] plea, [and] it also [was] not ‘prejudicial’ under the test later announced in State v. Morones,” [ , ].
State v. Rios 562 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Rios 562 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Lopez 557 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Lopez 557 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
in support of this position.
State v. Stenrud 553 P.2d 1201 Ariz. 1976
State v. Stenrud 553 P.2d 1201 Ariz. 1976
flatly held that restrictions on eligibility for parole were not a “consequence of the plea.” , held that the failure to inform a defendant of restrictions on early release was “technical error,” absent a showing of prejudice.
State v. Rios 545 P.2d 954 Ariz. 1976
State v. Deddens 542 P.2d 1124 Ariz. 1975
State v. Deddens 542 P.2d 1124 Ariz. 1975
State v. Smith, 13 Ariz.App.
State v. Morones 542 P.2d 28 Ariz. 1975
State v. Morones 542 P.2d 28 Ariz. 1975
“that the provision of the statute requiring that a prisoner serve a certain minimum sentence is not such a ‘consequence of the plea’ that it must affirmatively appear on the record under the Boykin mandate.” Since our decision in Ross, supra, we have adopted the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
State v. Riley 539 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Riley 539 P.2d 526 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Parle 521 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1974
State v. Parle 521 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1974
It was not necessary to inform him of the details of securing parole eligibility, , the trial court had informed him that he might never be granted parole.
State v. Richard 505 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1973
State v. Richard 505 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1973
As to the alleged-failure to advise of the mandatory mini-' mum sentence
Trevino v. State 503 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Trevino v. State 503 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
State v. Rodriguez 499 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
State v. Rodriguez 499 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
See, , , State v. Smith, 13 Ariz.App.