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. Cutler, 590 P.2d 444.

26 citing documents.

  • Cardoso v. Soldo 277 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Cardoso v. Soldo 277 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    See, , (although defendant released from jail, appeal challenging confinement not moot); -61 , , 949-50 *618 (App.1981) (defendant who has served sentence and been released from custody still entitled to appeal superior court’s refusal to order men
  • State v. Diaz 842 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Diaz 842 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1992
    “A defendant' must thoroughly understand the plea’s potential ramifications and be apprised of both the sentencing range and the rights forfeited.” Id.
  • State v. Diaz 835 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Diaz 835 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Watton 793 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Watton 793 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1990
    Rule 17.2, Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S.
  • State v. Conroy 797 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Conroy 797 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    (trial court erred when accepting defendant’s plea by failing to advise defendant that he could be confined in jail for one year as part of probation); , (defendant should be afforded opportunity to withdraw guilty plea when it appears defenda
  • State v. Adams 765 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Adams 765 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1988
    Phillips, 152 Ariz. at 535 , 733 P.2d at 1118 ( , ); see also McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466 , 89 S.Ct.
  • State v. Perkins 767 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Perkins 767 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Carranza 751 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Carranza 751 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Phillips 733 P.2d 1116 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Phillips 733 P.2d 1116 Ariz. 1987
    “For a plea to be intelligently made, a defendant must thoroughly understand its consequences.” Lukens , at 307 ( , (emphasis added)).
  • State v. Lukens 729 P.2d 306 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Lukens 729 P.2d 306 Ariz. 1986
    we said: A plea of guilty is more than a confession, it is itself a conviction[,] and must, therefore, be in “every respect voluntary.” A judge may not accept a defendant’s plea without first ascertaining that it is voluntary and intelligently made.
  • State v. Lane 625 P.2d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Lane 625 P.2d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    330 , n. *361 3, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977)
  • State v. Soto 616 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Soto 616 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    Relying on the supreme court’s 3 to 2 , the defendant argues that the failure of the trial court to advise the defendant of the possibility that a jail time condition of probation could exceed the time he would have to stay in prison affected the voluntariness of his plea.
  • State v. Harris 596 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Harris 596 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    our Supreme Court held that a defendant must be advised of the possibility that he could be required to serve one year in the county jail as a condition of probation.