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. Gaines, 549 P.2d 574.

44 citing documents.

  • State v. Allen 220 P.3d 245 Ariz. 2009
  • State v. Allen 220 P.3d 245 Ariz. 2009
    At one time, Arizona cases extended the Boykin colloquy requirement to a stipulation that was “tantamount to a guilty plea.” See, - 7 -
  • In Re Julio L. 990 P.2d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • In Re Julio L. 990 P.2d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Dosztal 697 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Dosztal 697 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Barber 653 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Barber 653 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Manley 623 P.2d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Manley 623 P.2d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
    State v. Gallegos, 27 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Avila 617 P.2d 1137 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Avila 617 P.2d 1137 Ariz. 1980
    appellant contended that when a submission to the court is tantamount to a guilty plea, the accused must receive the entire litany of Boykin rights.
  • State v. Steelman 612 P.2d 475 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Steelman 612 P.2d 475 Ariz. 1980
    In reviewing the transcript we are satisfied that there is a sufficient showing to support the conclusion of the trial judge that there was a knowing waiver.” State v. *25 Gaines
  • State v. Avila 617 P.2d 1155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Avila 617 P.2d 1155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    The State concedes the lack of compliance with the mandate of State v. Woods; a , , and acknowledges in substance that the submission was tantamount to a guilty plea, but urges this Court to utilize the case as a vehicle to reevaluate the procedural requirements imposed on a submission proceeding by State v. Woods .
  • State v. DeWoody 595 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. DeWoody 595 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    Viewing the evidence most favorably to the court’s ruling, , and deferring to the court’s resolution of the conflicting testimony, State v. Payne, 7 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Stone 594 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Stone 594 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    the Arizona Supreme Court set forth the test to determine the amount of evidence needed to sustain a jury’s verdict of guilty: It is well settled in this jurisdiction that in reviewing a challenge to sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case, it is not the function of the reviewing court to wei
  • State v. Ray 598 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Ray 598 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Sanders 575 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Sanders 575 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Malone 573 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Malone 573 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Myers 569 P.2d 1351 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Myers 569 P.2d 1351 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Cantu 569 P.2d 862 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Cantu 569 P.2d 862 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    the Arizona Supreme Court noted a distinction between a submission tantamount to a guilty plea and one that was not and stated that the former required “compliance of the mandate of Boykin ” while the latter necessitated only the due process requirements that the defendant be advised that he was
  • State v. Jenson 562 P.2d 372 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Jenson 562 P.2d 372 Ariz. 1977
    Examining the facts in a light most favorable to sustaining the conviction and resolving all reasonable inferences in favor of the State, , the following was established in support of the conviction.
  • State v. Woods 561 P.2d 306 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Widmer 569 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Woods 561 P.2d 306 Ariz. 1977
  • Followed State v. Widmer 569 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    393 , this Court held that State v. Jackson, supra, , and that Gaines contained no suggestion of any expansion of the requirements of State v. Crowley, supra.
  • State v. Ortiz 560 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Ortiz 560 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1977
    due process requires that the record reflect a knowing waiver of the constitutional rights which are relinquished by the submission of a case on the record.
  • State v. Gallegos 556 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Gallegos 556 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    are dispositive of this issue.
  • State v. Hiralez 555 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Hiralez 555 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    Appellant here suggests that Jackson somehow has been *397
  • State v. Wilson 553 P.2d 235 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Wilson 553 P.2d 235 Ariz. 1976