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. Lee, 541 P.2d 383.

30 citing documents.

  • State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    See, , (reversing the defendant's conviction when the trial court communicated with the jury outside of the defendant's and defense counsel's presence); , (reversing the defendant's conviction based upon the trial court's failure to follow Ariz. R.Crim.
  • State v. Draper 762 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Draper 762 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    State v. Lee , United States v. Roberts, 570 F.2d 999 (D.C.Cir.1977); see Santobella v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 , 92 S.Ct.
  • State v. Wilson 638 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Wilson 638 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1981
    An agreement may be revoked by any party prior to its acceptance by the court.” , we noted that “Rule 17.4 is designed to guarantee that the parties, the trial court and the appellate court are all aware of the exact agreement (emphasis supplied).” In the instant case, a written agreement was filed, but it contained no reference to a consecutive sentence for theft.
  • State v. Rogel 568 P.2d 421 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Rogel 568 P.2d 421 Ariz. 1977
    1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).” -84, -84 (1975).
  • State v. Davis 564 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Davis 564 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).’
  • State v. Morris 564 P.2d 78 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Morris 564 P.2d 78 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Cornwall 562 P.2d 723 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Cornwall 562 P.2d 723 Ariz. 1977
    * Al *552 though the defendant recognizes that a plea agreement was filed with the court, it is his contention that the State’s promise to recommend probation in return for the defendant’s testimony against certain of the defendants was a
  • State v. Lee 559 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Lee 559 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Blier 557 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Blier 557 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1976
    *504 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH “WRITTEN STIPULATION” CLAUSE OF RULE 11.5(a) , appellant contends that if counsel cannot, by words spoken in open court, avoid the necessity of filing a written plea agreement pursuant to 17 A.R.S.
  • State v. Cornwall 562 P.2d 382 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Cornwall 562 P.2d 382 Ariz. 1976
    1 , this case must be reversed.
  • State v. Mitchell 554 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Mitchell 554 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Gil 552 P.2d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Gil 552 P.2d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    He argues that every term of the agreement must be set down in writing, , Rule 17.4, Rules of Criminal Procedure, and that the dismissal of the appellant’s prior felony conviction should have been reflected in the agreement.
  • State v. Morris 549 P.2d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Morris 549 P.2d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    Appellant, , argues that this failure to comply with the rule necessitates that his guilty pleas be set aside.
  • State v. Rios 545 P.2d 954 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Rios 545 P.2d 954 Ariz. 1976
    1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).”
  • State v. Morones 542 P.2d 28 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Morones 542 P.2d 28 Ariz. 1975
    1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).” State v. Lee, Ariz.