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. Rios, 545 P.2d 954.

42 citing documents.

  • State v. Rowan 848 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Rowan 848 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • 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
    In Stenrud , , (holding that a plea cannot be considered “intelligently” made as required by Boykin where there is no evidence that the defendant was provided information required to be disclosed to him by rule 17.2, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.)
  • State v. Barksdale 694 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Barksdale 694 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Wesley 640 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Wesley 640 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1982
  • 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 response, , , and State v. Price, 27 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Dishong 594 P.2d 84 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Dishong 594 P.2d 84 Ariz. 1979
    We do not, however, agree with the State in its argument that only a failure to comply with Boykin “will entitle appellant to the relief he seeks.” , we held that a plea of guilty cannot be considered intelligently made where there was no evidence that the defendant was at any stage of the prosecution provided the information required to be disclosed to him under Rule 17.2.
  • State v. Nieto 578 P.2d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Nieto 578 P.2d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Levario 577 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Levario 577 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Ellis 572 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Ellis 572 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1977
    we expressly overruled the “no prejudice” position taken in Morones, supra, and articulated a new standard for reversal for violations of Rule 17.2(b) based on whether the defendant’s decision to plead guilty had been intelligently made.
  • State v. Cuthbertson 570 P.2d 1075 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Cuthbertson 570 P.2d 1075 Ariz. 1977
    is cited in support of this position.
  • State v. Rogel 568 P.2d 421 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Rogel 568 P.2d 421 Ariz. 1977
    may have been a technical possibility, it was not an operative element of the sentence which was imposed, thus it did not affect the computation or effect of appellant’s
  • State v. Drozd 569 P.2d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Drozd 569 P.2d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    Petitioner’s , which invalidated a guilty plea where the trial judge had failed to advise the defendant of the special minimum sentence provisions.
  • 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. Davis 564 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Davis 564 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    A plea cannot be considered ‘intelligently’ made where, as in this case, there is no evidence that the defendant was at any stage of the prosecution provided information required to be disclosed to him under Rule 17.2.”
  • State v. Rios 562 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Rios 562 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    However, on February 6, 1976, the Arizona Supreme Court filed its opinion in State v. Rios, 1 , which overruled State v. Ross and State v. Morones, supra, and held that a guilty plea must be invalidated where the trial judge had failed to advise the defendant concerning special minimum sentence provisions.
  • 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
    relating to guilty pleas.
  • State v. Lopez 557 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Lopez 557 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    The continuing vitality of Ross , however
  • State v. Stenrud 553 P.2d 1201 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Stenrud 553 P.2d 1201 Ariz. 1976
    should be given retroactive or merely prospective application.
  • 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
  • State v. Esquer 550 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Esquer 550 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    We turn next to the State’s contention that in applying our Supreme Court’s , this Court gave that decision improper retroactive effect.
  • State v. Esquer 546 P.2d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Esquer 546 P.2d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976