Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Varela, 587 P.2d 1173.
- State v. Ibarra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
State v. Ibarra
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
§ 13-2508(A)(3) and (C) (“The basic rule in reviewing a statute for vagueness is to determine whether the offense is defined in terms that 6 STATE v. IBARRA Decision of the Court people of average intelligence can understand.”).
- State v. Aguilar-Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
State v. Aguilar-Medina
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶7 In order for a plea of no contest to be valid, the superior court must find a factual basis demonstrating “strong evidence of actual guilt,” including sufficient evidence to support each element of the crime, but the “facts need not show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” ().
- State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
State v. Cooper
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(noting a defendant lacks standing “to attack a statute on grounds not applicable to himself”).
- State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
State v. Martin
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶5 The supreme court has noted that a “factual basis may be ascertained from the record including pre-sentence reports, preliminary hearing reports, admissions of the defendant, and from other sources.”
- State of Arizona v. Hesam Mohajerin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
- State of Arizona v. Hesam Mohajerin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
- State v. Getz 944 P.2d 503 Ariz. 1997
- State v. Getz 944 P.2d 503 Ariz. 1997
- 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
- State v. Richardson 857 P.2d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- State v. Richardson 857 P.2d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- State v. Stevenson 830 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
- State v. Stevenson 830 P.2d 869 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
- State v. Angelo 800 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- State v. Angelo 800 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- In Re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2 790 P.2d 723 Ariz. 1990
- In Re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2 790 P.2d 723 Ariz. 1990
- State v. Lammie 793 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- State v. Lammie 793 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- State v. Belcher 776 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
-
State v. Belcher
776 P.2d 811
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
“The basic rule in reviewing a statute for vagueness is to determine whether the offense is defined in terms that people of average intelligence can understand.”
- In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. 74802-2 781 P.2d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
- In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. 74802-2 781 P.2d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
- State v. Delk 734 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
- State v. Delk 734 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
- 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. Serrano 702 P.2d 1343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- State v. Serrano 702 P.2d 1343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
- State v. Forrester 657 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- State v. Forrester 657 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- State v. McVay 641 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1982
- State v. McVay 641 P.2d 857 Ariz. 1982
- State v. Smith 634 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- State v. Smith 634 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- State v. Sodders 633 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- State v. Sodders 633 P.2d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- State v. Seats 638 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- State v. Limpus 625 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- State v. Limpus 625 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Superior Court 624 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1981
- State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Superior Court 624 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1981
- State v. Freda 590 P.2d 1376 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Freda 590 P.2d 1376 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Pickett 589 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1978