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. Norris, 558 P.2d 903.

29 citing documents.

  • State v. Johnson 890 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Johnson 890 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    Indeed, limiting a court to only a defendant’s record would hinder the review for “strong evidence of actual guilt.”
  • State v. Sanchez 846 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Sanchez 846 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Coleman 733 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Coleman 733 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    For example, , the state established a factual basis for the elements of embezzlement but failed to present facts sufficient to show one element of the lesser offense of false pretenses to which the defendant pled guilty.
  • State v. Livanos 725 P.2d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Livanos 725 P.2d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    the court attempted to harmonize conflicting decisions of the court with respect to the test to be utilized in determining whether there is a factual basis for a guilty plea or a no-contest plea when the original charge has been amended or reduced.
  • State v. Johnson 689 P.2d 166 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Johnson 689 P.2d 166 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Seats 638 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Louden 619 P.2d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Louden 619 P.2d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Draper 599 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Draper 599 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    See Rule 17.3, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; , , This rule applies to prior convictions for enhancement of punishment as well as to elements of the substantive offense.
  • State v. Medina-Espinoza 593 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Medina-Espinoza 593 P.2d 905 Ariz. 1979
    I just had it with me.” In accepting a guilty plea, the trial court need not find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, State v. DeCoe, 118 Ariz. *158 502 , , but need only find “strong evidence of actual guilt * North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 , 91 S.Ct.
  • State v. Varela 587 P.2d 1173 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Varela 587 P.2d 1173 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. DeCoe 578 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. DeCoe 578 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1978
    North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct.
  • State v. Snodgrass 570 P.2d 1280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Snodgrass 570 P.2d 1280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    and we have therefore examined the sufficiency of the evidence in the extended record.
  • State v. King 569 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. King 569 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    State v. Reynolds, supra; see also
  • State v. Page 564 P.2d 379 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Page 564 P.2d 379 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Chagnon 564 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Chagnon 564 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    State v. Norris, *180 , (filed Dec.