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. Ellison, 526 P.2d 706.

36 citing documents.

  • State v. Leyva 389 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • State v. Leyva 389 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
    2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also Fields, 277 F.3d at 1214, 1216 (counsel did not perform deficiently by “convincing defendant’s] family to implore him to plead guilty”); , (noting defense attorney “may be performing his best service for his client in advising him to plead guilty as a means of bargaining for the most lenient treatment possible”).
  • State of Arizona v. Rey David Villegas 281 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • State of Arizona v. Rey David Villegas 281 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    “Under Arizona law, a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and in the absence of a clear abuse of that discretion, its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal.” see also Ariz. R. Crim.
  • Duran v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR MARICOPA 782 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • Duran v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR MARICOPA 782 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    See, , , , , -05 (1962); , State v. Gibbs, 6 Ariz.A
  • State v. Caperon 728 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Caperon 728 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Flewellen 621 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Flewellen 621 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Wilson 615 P.2d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Wilson 615 P.2d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Weatherholt 589 P.2d 883 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Weatherholt 589 P.2d 883 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Sims 575 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Sims 575 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Pierce 569 P.2d 865 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Pierce 569 P.2d 865 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    Two separate hearings are not mandated, , and thus, if the making of the finding were of itself sufficient, our inquiry would be at an end.
  • State v. Williams 569 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Williams 569 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Rodriquez 558 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Rodriquez 558 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    our Supreme Court limited Sieling to situations in which the factual support to find competency to stand trial or to waive constitutional rights is inadequate or conflicting.
  • State v. Cornwall 562 P.2d 382 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Cornwall 562 P.2d 382 Ariz. 1976
    State v. McKesson, 27 Ariz.App.
  • State v. McKesson 556 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. McKesson 556 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    State v. Fratus, 20 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Ferguson 547 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Ferguson 547 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Contreras 542 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Contreras 542 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Vassar 533 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Vassar 533 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Byrd 527 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State v. Byrd 527 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
    uired to determine whether defendant was competent to plead guilty in addition to the finding that he was competent to stand trial.” Because of this adoption, we must determine whether the facts of this case fall within the stated exceptions to Sieling as enunciated by our Supreme Court: either that the factual support to find competency to stand trial is not in conflict, State v. Ellison, Ariz., (filed Sept.
  • State v. Bates 526 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Bates 526 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1974
    These issues were largely met by this court recently in State v. Ellison, Ariz.