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. Ellis, 572 P.2d 791.

50 citing documents.

  • State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    (having said he was not coerced to plead guilty, defendant’s later assertion that he pleaded guilty because of pretrial incarceration failed); (“[Appellant] has not satisfied us [in light of his statements when changing his plea] that [prison] conditions had such a coercive influence on his decision to plead guilty[.]”).
  • State v. Neidig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Neidig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    (“[A]s we have said many times, a defendant waives any question regarding his right to a speedy trial by entering a plea of guilty.”).
  • State v. Phifer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Phifer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    had such a coercive influence on his decision to plead guilty that the plea was involuntary.”
  • State v. Lowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Lowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    (“[A]s we have said many times, a 2 STATE v. LOWE Decision of the Court defendant waives any question regarding his right to a speedy trial by entering a plea of guilty.”).
  • State v. Harrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Harrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    1 ¶5 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief.
  • State of Arizona v. Rey David Villegas 281 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • State of Arizona v. Rey David Villegas 281 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    When the court complies with these mandates, “we can say that under constitutional standards the plea has been intelligently made.” State v. Ellis, 117 Ariz. 329, 333
  • State v. Pac 798 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Pac 798 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1990
    Rule 17.2(b); , , (App.1990) (holding that defendant was not influenced by contingencies which had yet to occur and were not contemplated by anyone when the plea was accepted and defendant sentenced).
  • State v. Henderson 797 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Henderson 797 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    State v. Pac, 163 Ariz 58, review granted, (Ariz.Sup.Ct.
  • State v. Shuler 780 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Shuler 780 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Lee 774 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Lee 774 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    In fact, , in holding that a defendant was prejudiced by not being aware that he had to serve the minimum sentence imposed by the court before becoming eligible for parole.
  • State v. Crowder 747 P.2d 1176 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Crowder 747 P.2d 1176 Ariz. 1987
    State v. Levario, 118 * , (extended record must be examined with regard to defendant’s knowledge of special sentencing conditions); , (dealing with nature of charge and range of possible sentence).
  • State v. Lamas 694 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Lamas 694 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Bernal 671 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Bernal 671 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Lamas 666 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Lamas 666 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    Furthermore, the state argued that the plea itself was not defective because there was no prejudice shown to Lamas because of the sentence actually imposed
  • State v. Williams 656 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Williams 656 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Fristoe 658 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Fristoe 658 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Gannon 638 P.2d 206 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Gannon 638 P.2d 206 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Denney 634 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Denney 634 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1981
    As we stated in [State v.] Cuth-bertson, [ ] supra, ‘[h]owever, if the defendant was not prejudiced by his lack of understanding of the complete provisions of the sentencing statute, the error is not reversible error.’ 570 P.2d at 1077 .”
  • State v. Avila 617 P.2d 1137 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Avila 617 P.2d 1137 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Rodriguez 612 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Rodriguez 612 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    a guilty plea taken in violation of the terms of rule 17.2 must be vacated or the case remanded to determine if the defendant was actually aware of the special sentencing provisions at the time he entered his plea.
  • State v. Wilson 615 P.2d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Wilson 615 P.2d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Dishong 594 P.2d 84 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Dishong 594 P.2d 84 Ariz. 1979
    we retreated from this position, holding: “It is now our opinion that Rios, supra, swept too broadly.
  • State v. Herrera 588 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Herrera 588 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1978
  • 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
    If the sentence contains any provision that the defendant was not aware of, that affects the manner in which the sentence or date of parole is computed, either the guilty plea should be vacated or the case remanded to determine if the defendant was actually aware of the provision absent from the record.”
  • State v. Hill 575 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Hill 575 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978