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. Munoz, 520 P.2d 291.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Durazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Durazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (finding no reason to disqualify judge where “the defendant was no stranger to the trial judge and over the years she had been before him as a juvenile and her name had been prominent in other [criminal] activities in the .
  • Gerardo Lopez v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • Gerardo Lopez v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    ¶¶ 9-13, -100 (1999) (judge who presided over defendant’s trial for aggravated assault and robbery properly presided over later capital murder case in which earlier convictions found to be aggravating circumstance); (judge familiar with defendant’s criminal history from many previous appearances not subject to disqualification for cause).
  • State v. Everhart 819 P.2d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Everhart 819 P.2d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
    State v. Carpenter, 1 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
    1498 , 55 L.Ed.2d 524 (1978); , (recusal not required when, from prior dealings, judge acquired accurate information about defendant where a complete presentence report would have contained such information anyway and defendant failed to request change of judge prior to sentencing)
  • State v. Emanuel 768 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • Distinguished State v. Emanuel 768 P.2d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Thompson 724 P.2d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Thompson 724 P.2d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Rossi 706 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Rossi 706 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Vickers 675 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Vickers 675 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Menard 661 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Menard 661 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    In the instant case, the desire of the defendant to go back and have another judge resentence after the sentence has been imposed comes too late.” , citing State v. Shahan, 17 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Kelly 595 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Kelly 595 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Ramirez 569 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Ramirez 569 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Kasold 521 P.2d 995 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Kasold 521 P.2d 995 Ariz. 1974
    In sentencing, a judge may consider information which might not be admissible at a trial, but which is certainly relevant for the purpose of sentencing, , , filed March 21, 1974, and we have recently held that an item obtained as the result of an illegal search warrant may be used as a basis for sentencing.