Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ethington, 592 P.2d 768.

41 citing documents.

State v. Hon. hancock/jennifer Ferrell 347 P.3d 142 Ariz. 2015
State v. Hon. hancock/jennifer Ferrell 347 P.3d 142 Ariz. 2015
–74, –70 (1979) (holding that, as a matter of public policy, a defendant cannot bargain away the right to appeal); see also CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, ¶ 6, (“Contract provisions are enforceable unless prohibited by law or otherwise contr
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
State v. Ward 118 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Ward 118 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
-74 , -70 (1979)(right to appeal is not negotiable in plea bargaining and as a matter of public policy a defendant will be permitted to bring a timely appeal).
State v. Secord 88 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Williams 664 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Harvey 974 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Harvey 974 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Smith 910 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1996
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
Wilson v. Ellis 859 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1993
Wilson v. Ellis 859 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1993
-74 , -70 (1979) (state cannot be allowed to insulate itself from its errors).
State v. Anderson 887 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Anderson 887 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
: [s]ole responsibility for sentencing rests with the trial judge and in the absence of clear abuse of discretion, his sentence is valid.
State v. Wilson 851 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Wilson 851 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
where the Arizona Supreme Court held that “public policy forbids a prosecutor from insulating himself from review by bargaining a defendant’s appeal rights.” The thrust of Ethington was that public policy prohibited the state from bargaining away a defendant’s right of appeal and leavi
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
See, , Stuck, 154 Ariz. at 22 , 739 P.2d at 1339 ; Walker v. Endell, 850 F.2d 470 (9th Cir.1987).
State v. Draper 762 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Draper 762 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
(right to appeal is not negotiable); State v. Horning, No. 1 CA-CR 10839 (filed March 17, 1988) (conjugal visits are not a proper inducement for a guilty plea); United States v. DeMarco, 401 F.Supp.
State v. Rutherford 744 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Rutherford 744 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Solano 724 P.2d 42 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Solano 724 P.2d 42 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
where the Arizona Supreme Court held that public policy forbids a prosecutor from insulating the state’s position from review by bargaining away a defendant’s appeal right.
State v. Ross 696 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Ross 696 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
State v. Mincey 687 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1984
State v. Tapp 653 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Tapp 653 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Gannon 638 P.2d 206 Ariz. 1981
State v. Gannon 638 P.2d 206 Ariz. 1981
cert, denied, 363 U.S. 815 , 80 S.Ct.
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
* * * An abuse of discretion is characterized by capriciousness or arbitrariness or by a failure to conduct an adequate investigation into the facts necessary for an intelligent exercise of the court’s sentencing power.” , (citations omitted).
State v. Baker 617 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Baker 617 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. La Mountain 611 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1980
State v. La Mountain 611 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1980