Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Crowley, 528 P.2d 834.

69 citing documents.

State v. Allen 220 P.3d 245 Ariz. 2009
State v. Allen 220 P.3d 245 Ariz. 2009
At one time, Arizona cases extended the Boykin colloquy requirement to a stipulation that was “tantamount to a guilty plea.” See, - 7 -
State v. Conroy 814 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1991
State v. Conroy 814 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1991
2 In State v. Crowley, we stated that the requirements of Rule 17.2, including information concerning the range of sentence and special conditions of sentencing, applied not only to guilty pleas but also to cases in which a defendant’s waiver of a jury trial and submission of the question of guilt or innocence to the trial court on the record “has the same effect as a plea of *375 guilty.” , overruled
State v. Conroy 797 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Conroy 797 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Adams 750 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Adams 750 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
the Arizona Supreme Court held that due process requires that a trial court make a record, similar to that required by Boykin , when the case is to be decided on the preliminary hearing transcript.
State v. Avila 617 P.2d 1137 Ariz. 1980
State v. Avila 617 P.2d 1137 Ariz. 1980
appellant contended that when a submission to the court is tantamount to a guilty plea, the accused must receive the entire litany of Boykin rights.
State v. Steelman 612 P.2d 475 Ariz. 1980
State v. Steelman 612 P.2d 475 Ariz. 1980
We have held that in such cases, “[d]ue process requires that the trial court make a record similar to that required by Boykin v. Alabama, supra, to determine if the decision to submit the case * * * was freely, intelligently and voluntarily made.” , State v. Woods, supra.
State v. Avila 617 P.2d 1155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Avila 617 P.2d 1155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
The State concedes the lack of compliance with the mandate of State v. Woods; a , , and acknowledges in substance that the submission was tantamount to a guilty plea, but urges this Court to utilize the case as a vehicle to reevaluate the procedural requirements imposed on a submission proceeding by State v. Woods .
State v. Reuben 612 P.2d 1071 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Reuben 612 P.2d 1071 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Cruz 600 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Cruz 600 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Dosztal 599 P.2d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Dosztal 599 P.2d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Gossett 583 P.2d 1364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Gossett 583 P.2d 1364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
and State v. Woods, supra.
State v. Encinas 571 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1977
State v. Encinas 571 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1977
1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)
State v. Malone 573 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Garcia 570 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1977
State v. Garcia 570 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1977
1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); , State v. Garcia, supra.
State v. Cantu 569 P.2d 862 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Cantu 569 P.2d 862 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)
State v. Garcia 566 P.2d 683 Ariz. 1977
State v. Garcia 566 P.2d 683 Ariz. 1977
1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) , his waiver and submission were not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made, thereby requiring remand.
State v. Encinas 571 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Encinas 571 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Woods, supra; , , 17 ARS Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 17.2(b).
State v. Chagnon 564 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Chagnon 564 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Woods 561 P.2d 306 Ariz. 1977
State v. Widmer 569 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Widmer 569 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
The opinion noted that this was not set forth as a , and the Court would not extend Crowley to add such a requirement, even though the submission was tantamount to a guilty plea by virtue of the defendant’s admissions contained in the departmental reports.
State v. Woods 561 P.2d 306 Ariz. 1977
In State v. Gaines, we said: “ , we held that an agreement by the parties to submit the matter on the preliminary hearing transcript, when such an agreement is tantamount to a plea of guilty, requires compliance with the mandates of Boykin [v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct.
State v. Butrick 558 P.2d 908 Ariz. 1976
State v. Butrick 558 P.2d 908 Ariz. 1976
this court held that a trial record must affirmatively show a defendant knows he is giving up his or her right to a jury trial when it is waived, and a signed document with a simple recital that his or her rights have been discussed with defense counsel is insufficient to meet the requirement of
State v. Price 558 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Price 558 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
The record must reflect that the defendant understood that the whole issue of his guilt or innocence of the offense charged was to be made upon the preliminary hearing transcript.”
State v. Mankel 555 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Mankel 555 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)
State v. Hiralez 555 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Hiralez 555 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Appellant contends that the trial court’s failure to advise the appellant of the minimum and maximum range of sentencing prior to appellant’s
State v. Sutton 553 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Sutton 553 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
On appeal, he claims he was denied a speedy trial under the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and that the trial judge failed to comply with the requirements of State v. *233 Crowley, , for submission on preliminary hearing transcripts.
State v. Offing 551 P.2d 556 Ariz. 1976