Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Falkner, 542 P.2d 404.

38 citing documents.

State v. Godoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Godoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 9 (App. 2014); (“Does the court have inherent power to modify a sentence?
David C. Shinn v. Az boec/freeman Ariz. 2022
David C. Shinn v. Az boec/freeman Ariz. 2022
8) (holding that an order granting a motion for a new trial “was void for lack of jurisdiction” after being entered outside of the time limit prescribed by the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure); (“[W]e have held in the past the superior court has no jurisdiction to modify its original judgment” after it has been affirmed on appeal); (holding that “[t]he trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in modifying the sentence imposed in the absence of such facts that would satisfy the requirements of R
State v. Ruzzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Ruzzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(confirming that “there is a factual basis for a plea of guilty if it is established by the total record of the case”).
State v. Harries Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Harries Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(“Rule 60(c) does not have any further application to criminal cases.”); see also Campbell, 96 Ariz. at 214; (holding that the superior court’s substantive authority regarding post-trial motions “is limited to that set out in the Rules”).
State v. Godoy 418 P.3d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Godoy 418 P.3d 1100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Superior Court , , 289, , 916 (1979), quoting State v. Falkner , , 374, , 406 (1975).
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano 323 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano 323 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Our supreme court definitively resolved this question 5 : Does the court have inherent power to modify a sentence?
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Joseph Michael Goddard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Joseph Michael Goddard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
„[d]angerous crime against children‟ means any of the following that is Ariz. 372, 374, (“One is convicted when there has been a determination of guilt by .
State of Arizona v. Della Lisa Vermuele Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Della Lisa Vermuele Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
But a trial court lacks jurisdiction under that rule to provide any relief unless the final sentence was “unlawful” or “imposed in an unlawful manner.”
State v. House 821 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. House 821 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Glasscock 812 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Glasscock 812 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Rutherford 744 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Rutherford 744 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
See Rule 24.3, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure
State v. Carvajal 709 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Carvajal 709 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Suniga 701 P.2d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Suniga 701 P.2d 1197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Thomas 688 P.2d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Thomas 688 P.2d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Superior Court 603 P.2d 915 Ariz. 1979
State v. Superior Court 603 P.2d 915 Ariz. 1979
we addressed the problem of the trial court’s scope of jurisdiction in post-trial motions: Does the court have inherent power to modify a sentence?
State v. Superior Court 598 P.2d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Superior Court 598 P.2d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Filipov 576 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Filipov 576 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Wood 564 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Wood 564 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
dealt with a motion to modify filed pursuant to Rule 24.3, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., and did not deal with the situation sub judice.