Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Davis, 539 P.2d 897.
- Charlson v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Charlson v. State
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
4 CHARLSON v. STATE Decision of the Court ¶13 Second, Charlson was not denied the opportunity to speak before sentence was imposed— (finding no denial of allocution where defense counsel stated there was no reason judgment should not be entered).
- State v. Dixon 622 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
- State v. Dixon 622 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
- State v. McCall 770 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1989
- State v. McCall 770 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1989
- State v. Ballantyne 623 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- State v. Ballantyne 623 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-87432 616 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-87432 616 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- 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. Nelson 592 P.2d 1267 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Nelson 592 P.2d 1267 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Stewart 576 P.2d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
- State v. Stewart 576 P.2d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
- State v. Page 564 P.2d 379 Ariz. 1977
-
State v. Page
564 P.2d 379
Ariz. 1977
we stated that a plea of guilty cannot be sustained absent a factual basis to support each of the elements of the crime to which the defendant has pled.
- State v. Henry 562 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Henry 562 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1977
- State v. Ray 560 P.2d 1287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
- State v. Ray 560 P.2d 1287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
- State v. Cook 547 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- State v. Cook 547 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- State v. Garrison 544 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
-
State v. Garrison
544 P.2d 687
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
However, , and Hopson, supra, hold that defendant’s counsel may answer for the defendant and that his counsel’s response satisfies the constitutional right of allocution as well as the provisions of Rule 26.10(b)(1).
- 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. Young 542 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Young 542 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Contreras 542 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Contreras 542 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Hopson 543 P.2d 1126 Ariz. 1975
- State v. Hopson 543 P.2d 1126 Ariz. 1975