Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Contreras, 542 P.2d 17.

46 citing documents.

State v. Ramsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ramsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State of Arizona v. Rahim Muhammad 513 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Rahim Muhammad 513 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2022
Instead, before such a defendant may waive a jury trial, the trial court must have concluded the defendant (1) is competent to stand trial, and “if a defendant has already been adjudicated competent, the court [may] rely on the record supporting that previous adjudication,” Moody, 208 Ariz. at 443 ¶ 48 (–61 (1975)), see Godinez, 509 U.S. at 401–02; 3 and (2) knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived the right to a jury trial pursuant to Rule 18.1(b).
State v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Clark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
ugh the superior court had a “continuing duty to inquire into [Wright’s] competency, and to order a Rule 11 examination sua sponte if reasonable grounds exist[ed],” Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. at 162, any additional Rule 11 examination was required only if new circumstances created a good faith doubt about Wright’s competency, –23 (1994); –61 (1975) (additional examinations may be ordered if there arises some reasonable ground to question the defendant’s competency based on facts not previously presen
State v. Blake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Blake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 48 (2004) (court entitled to rely on record supporting competency adjudication unless defendant presents reasonable ground for another competency hearing based on new facts) (-61 (1975)).
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco 386 P.3d 798 Ariz. 2017
Such stipulations are “entirely in accord with due process.” (citing predecessor statute to Rule 11.5(a)); (concluding trial 7 STATE V. ESCALANTE-OROZCO Opinion of the Court court did not er
State v. Ward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Ward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
-61 , -20 (1975) (holding that before granting a second competency hearing, “there must be some reasonable ground to justify another hearing on facts not previously presented to the trial court”).
Bishop v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 724 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1986
Bishop v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA CTY. 724 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1986
State v. Hartford 636 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1981
State v. Hartford 636 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1981
State v. Cutler 590 P.2d 444 Ariz. 1979
State v. Cutler 590 P.2d 444 Ariz. 1979
State v. Killian 577 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Killian 577 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Sims 575 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1978
State v. Sims 575 P.2d 1236 Ariz. 1978
This court has likewise recognized that the standard of competency to plead guilty is higher than the standard of competency to stand trial, , that a finding by the trial court that a plea was “voluntary and knowing” was sufficient.
State v. Pierce 569 P.2d 865 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Criticized State v. Pierce 569 P.2d 865 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
See, especially, , State v. Byrd, 22 Ariz.App.
State v. Messier 562 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Messier 562 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Cf., , Pate v. Robinson, supra; also, , , State v. Rodriquez, 27 Ariz.App.
State v. Wagner 561 P.2d 1231 Ariz. 1977
State v. Wagner 561 P.2d 1231 Ariz. 1977
*463 (citations omitted)” -58 , , 400 01 (1974)
State v. Johnson 570 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Johnson 570 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Rodriquez 558 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Rodriquez 558 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Blier, supra, also held that defense counsel may waive a defendant’s right to be present “absent any indication in the record that the defendant is dissatisfied with his legal representation.” See also
State v. Blier 557 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1976
State v. Blier 557 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1976
Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, supra; , 17 A.R.S.
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
where it held: “The appellant now contends that counsel cannot stipulate to the submission of the matter on the psychiatric reports without the consent of the accused.
State v. Thompson 545 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1976
State v. Thompson 545 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1976
State v. Huizar 543 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1975
State v. Huizar 543 P.2d 1118 Ariz. 1975
“A plea cannot be said to be voluntary if not made with an awareness of its ramifications, and to that end, the defendant is apprised of the range of sentence and the rights forfeited by a plea of guilty.”
State v. Young 542 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1975
State v. Young 542 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1975
State v. Contreras, Ariz.