Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Janise, 570 P.2d 499.

38 citing documents.

State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243-44 n.7 (1969) (holding that waiver of such rights cannot be presumed from a silent record); (holding that the trial court reversibly erred in failing to inform defendant of range of possible sentences before a bench trial based solely on contents of police report).
State of Arizona v. Cesar Francisco Rubiano 150 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Cesar Francisco Rubiano 150 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶13 Finally, our supreme court’s P.2d 499 (1977), does not require application of the corpus delicti principle here.
State v. Nieves 87 P.3d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Nieves 87 P.3d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State of Arizona v. Carl W. Morgan, Jr 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Morgan 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Morgan 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State of Arizona v. Carl W. Morgan, Jr 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Flores 42 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Flores 42 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(corpus delicti requires “reasonable inference that the crime charged was actually committed by some person”); , (“It is ...
State v. JONES EX REL. COUNTY OF MARICORA 6 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. JONES EX REL. COUNTY OF MARICORA 6 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Gillies, 135 Ariz. at 506 , 662 P.2d at 1013
State v. Villa 880 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Villa 880 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
(relying on defendant’s inability to show officer any indicia of ownership of car to support corpus delicti in burglary case).
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Guttersen 787 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Guttersen 787 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
§ 36-2027(D) was ambiguous on the question of whether the trial court had the sole power to dismiss under that statute, , where, according to the trial court, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the trial court had the sole power to dismiss under the statute.
State v. May 669 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. May 669 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Melendez 661 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Melendez 661 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Gerlaugh 654 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1982
State v. Gerlaugh 654 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1982
State v. Veatch 646 P.2d 279 Ariz. 1982
State v. Veatch 646 P.2d 279 Ariz. 1982
State v. Avila 617 P.2d 1137 Ariz. 1980
State v. Avila 617 P.2d 1137 Ariz. 1980
Webb v. Charles 611 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Webb v. Charles 611 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Visco v. Universal Refuse Removal Company, 11 Ariz.App.
Correa v. Curbey 605 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Correa v. Curbey 605 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Visco v. Universal Refuse Removal Company, 11 Ariz.App.
State v. Delgado 579 P.2d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Delgado 579 P.2d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Encinas 571 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1977
State v. Encinas 571 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1977