Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Carriger, 692 P.2d 991.

184 citing documents.

State v. Herrera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 11 (2005); (“Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be denied relief.”).
State v. Vigorito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Vigorito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
See Pandeli, 242 Ariz. at 182 ¶ 15 (“Disagreements as to trial strategy or errors in trial will not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as long as the challenged conduct could have some reasoned basis.” ()); (finding no ineffective assistance where counsel’s “failure to offer any instructions may have been a decision on his part that his client was well served by the court’s [other] instructions.”).
State v. Stevenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Stevenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“A defendant is guilty when convicted and if he chooses not to publicly admit his guilt, that is irrelevant to a sentencing determination.”
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
PCR proceedings are designed to “accommodate the unusual situation where justice ran its course and yet went awry.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Ware Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ware Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Stafford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Stafford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Freeny Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Freeny Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
P. 32.1 (enumerating the grounds for PCR relief); ¶ 12 (2005) (requiring the PCR petitioner to raise “grounds that bring him within the provisions of [Rule 32]”) ().
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 11 (2005); (“Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be denied relief.”).
State v. Nunez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Nunez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶15 As explained by our supreme court, a “defendant is guilty when convicted and if he chooses not to publicly admit his guilt, that is irrelevant to a sentencing determination.”
State v. McBee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. McBee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 11 (2005); (“Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be denied relief.”).
State v. Soto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Soto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(“Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be 2 STATE v. SOTO Decision of the Court denied relief.”); (Lack of a sufficient argument waives the cl
State of Arizona v. Larry Dean Anderson 547 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Larry Dean Anderson 547 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2024
¶22 But Rule 32 is also “designed to accommodate the unusual situation where justice ran its course and yet went awry.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Kerl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Kerl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
“Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be denied relief.”
State v. Brackeen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Brackeen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 15 (App. 2021) (where petitioner was convicted of a crime not cognizable under Arizona law, the passage of time alone is insufficient to justify summary dismissal of PCR claims challenging the finding of guilt and the sentence imposed); (“It is the petitioner’s burden to assert grounds that bring him within the provisions 1 Brackeen explained: My attorney failed to file my notice of post-conviction [relief] when she said that she would in my case[.]
State v. Baltazar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Baltazar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(“It is the petitioner’s burden to assert grounds that bring him within the provisions of [Rule 33] in order to obtain relief.”); see also Ramirez, 126 Ariz. at 468.
State v. Stuart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Stuart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Evans 506 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Evans 506 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 11 (2005); (“Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be denied relief.”).
State v. Getzen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Lipsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Getzen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Lipsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 11 (2005); (“Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be denied relief.”).
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
arguments supporting the relief requested), 33.16(d) (prohibiting incorporation by reference); –84, ¶ 13 (App. 2012) (disapproving incorporating arguments by reference); ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (requiring a petition for review to cite relevant authority and meaningfully develop the supporting argument); (requiring strict compliance with procedural rules for post-conviction relief).
State v. Coffey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Coffey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
2 STATE v. COFFEY Decision of the Court petition” and “specific references to the record”); (insufficient argument waives claim on review); (“Petitioners must strictly comply with [Rules governing post-conviction relief] or be denied relief.”); ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (finding petition for review incorporating trial court filings “utterly fails to comply” with Rules governing post-conviction relief and therefore re
State v. MacIas 469 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. MacIas 469 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 11 (2005); (“Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be denied relief.”).
State v. Torrance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Torrance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
is irrelevant to a sentencing determination.”
State v. Kittrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020