Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Brooks, 586 P.2d 1270.

26 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Damrrion Jacquis Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
State of Arizona v. Damrrion Jacquis Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
And even assuming the factual basis to which Matthews agreed in pleading guilty was defective—a question that is not before us and that we do not decide—“[i]t is well established in this state that a judge is not limited to a defendant’s statement at the plea hearing in ascertaining a factual basis for a guilty plea.” ().
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Salinas 887 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1994
State v. Salinas 887 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1994
“It is well established in this state that a judge is not limited to a defendant’s statement at the plea hearing in ascertaining a factual basis for a guilty plea.”
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
at 95 , 612 P.2d at 1058 (emphasis added); , (finding acts “by their very nature manifest” the required motivation); , (same).
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-121430 838 P.2d 1365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-121430 838 P.2d 1365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Under such circumstances, the juvenile’s acts, “by their very nature manifest that he was motivated by” a sexual interest, an interest that even Dr. Esplín characterized as “inappropriate” and “clearly unacceptable behavior.” , (trial court did not need to inquire into defendant’s motivation to find factual basis for voluntary guilty plea to child molestation because defendant’s acts “by their very nature” manifested a motivation of sexual interest).
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. Turrentine 730 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Turrentine 730 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Ybarra 716 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Ybarra 716 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Hamilton 688 P.2d 983 Ariz. 1984
State v. Hamilton 688 P.2d 983 Ariz. 1984
*94 861 (1982); , (a presentence report); , (admissions by the defendant).
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. 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 v. Roberts 612 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1980
State v. Roberts 612 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1980
State v. Freda 590 P.2d 1376 Ariz. 1979
State v. Freda 590 P.2d 1376 Ariz. 1979
It is not necessary to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” A judge is not limited to a defendant’s statement at the plea hearing in determining whether there is a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea, , but may consider presentence reports, preliminary hearing transcripts, admissions of the defendant, and other sources.