Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Johnson, 557 P.2d 1063.

41 citing documents.

State v. Cochran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Cochran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
David C. Shinn v. Az boec/freeman Ariz. 2022
David C. Shinn v. Az boec/freeman Ariz. 2022
The court, also held that the nunc pro tunc order was procedurally proper because it modified Freeman’s sentence to “accurately reflect[] the sentence [Judge Kelly] believed he imposed” in 1994.
State v. Estell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Estell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
The rule does, however, “allow[ ] the record to be corrected to reflect the truth.”
Shinn v. abec/berry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Shinn v. abec/berry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
record now for then what actually did occur,” and the power to enter such an order “is inherent in the court.” -43 (1935); (“The purpose of a nunc pro tunc order is to make the record reflect the intention of the parties or the court at the time the record was made[.]”).
State v. Botch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Botch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“The purpose of a nunc pro tunc order is to make the record reflect the intention of [] the court at the time the record was made.” (emphasis added).
State v. Dalton 366 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dalton 366 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In Re John C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In Re John C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(noting inherent power of court to issue order nunc pro tunc to “make the record speak the truth”) (quoting Black v. Indus.
Earl v. Hon. garcia/state 324 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hunter 260 P.3d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Hunter 260 P.3d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
(excluded time begins when motion to dismiss filed); , (excluded time for competency hearing begins on date motion filed); , (excluded time begins when special a
Godoy v. Hantman 67 P.3d 700 Ariz. 2003
Godoy v. Hantman 67 P.3d 700 Ariz. 2003
State v. Buonafede 797 P.2d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Buonafede 797 P.2d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
(court properly modified nunc pro tunc order to reflect that dismissal was without prejudice to conform to court’s original intent).
Watts v. Fleischman 778 P.2d 1232 Ariz. 1989
Watts v. Fleischman 778 P.2d 1232 Ariz. 1989
the court held that the time during which the motions were under advisement was excludable under rule 8.
State v. Brooks 777 P.2d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Brooks 777 P.2d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
is factually similar to the case before^ us. There, the defendant was charged with murder.
State v. Soto 764 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Soto 764 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
See, , -53 , -73 (App.1982); , (“The comment to that section [Rule 8.4] further makes it clear that such times must be excluded....” (emphasis added)).
State v. Tarkington 760 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Tarkington 760 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
DeForest v. DeForest 694 P.2d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
DeForest v. DeForest 694 P.2d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
our supreme court upheld the trial court’s entry of judgment nunc pro tunc based on the trial judge’s minute entry statement that he had signed an order dismissing a criminal matter in which the phrase “without prejudice” had inadvertently been left out of the formal order.
State v. Superior Court 672 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Superior Court 672 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Pyeatt 659 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Pyeatt 659 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Meneghin 634 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1981
Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Meneghin 634 P.2d 570 Ariz. 1981
See, e. g., , 557 P.2d *124 1063 (1976); , Estate of Hash v. Henderson, supra; Rule 58(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.; State Bar Committee Notes to thé’ 1970 Amendment to Rule 58(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.
State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
State v. Rose 589 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1978
State v. McDonald 571 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. McDonald 571 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977