Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Blodgette, 590 P.2d 931.

44 citing documents.

State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We review a denial of a motion to continue for an abuse of discretion and will not reverse unless the “discretion has been abused so as to result in prejudice to the defendant.”
State v. Uriarte-Velazquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Uriarte-Velazquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(holding no abuse of discretion in denying continuance where defendant failed to subpoena witness).
State v. Offret Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Offret Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
P. 31.13(c)(1)-(2); State v. Blodgette, 121 Ariz. 392, 395
State v. Sanchez 24 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Sanchez 24 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Petzoldt 836 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Petzoldt 836 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
2670 , 81 L.Ed.2d 375 (1984)
State v. Rodriguez 773 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Rodriguez 773 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Felkins 749 P.2d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Felkins 749 P.2d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Doolittle 746 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Doolittle 746 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
(claims of error which defendant failed to argue as required by Rule 31.13(c)(l)(iv), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, stating that opening brief shall include a concise argument containing the contentions of the party, were not entitled to consideration on appeal).
State v. Dungan 718 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Dungan 718 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Apart from the fact that appellant has failed to present a proper argument pursuant to Eule 31.13(c)(1)(iv), Eules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.E.S., , the record reveals no evidence that appellant was prejudiced by ineffective assistance of advisory counsel.
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
31.13(c)(1)(iv) provides that the opening brief in a criminal appeal should include “[a] concise argument containing the contentions of the party, the reasons therefor, and necessary supporting citations.” Failure to argue a claim constitutes abandonment, , , and waiver thereof.
State v. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Eisenlord 670 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Van Alcorn 665 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Van Alcorn 665 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Rule 31.13(c)(l)(iv), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., requires that the appellant’s brief shall contain: “A concise argument containing the contentions of the party, the reasons therefor, and necessary supporting citations.”
State v. Morgan 625 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Morgan 625 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Brooks 618 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Brooks 618 P.2d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Byers 613 P.2d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Byers 613 P.2d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
State v. Smith 610 P.2d 46 Ariz. 1980
State v. Smith 610 P.2d 46 Ariz. 1980
Rule 31.13, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.