Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Avila, 617 P.2d 1137.

54 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Dewayne Esaw 554 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Dewayne Esaw 554 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 525-26 (1972) (presuming waiver from silence or acquiescence impermissible); -25 (1980) (knowing, voluntary, and intelligent surrender of constitutional rights “will not be presumed from a silent record”).
Christopher B. v. Mia D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Christopher B. v. Mia D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Adam C., Kalynn R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Adam C., Kalynn R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Ct. 66(D)(1)(a) (June 30, 2022); (“in any proceeding involving the surrender of Constitutional rights, it must appear from the record that the waiver was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made”).
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
However, “in any proceeding involving the surrender of Constitutional rights, it must appear from the record that the waiver was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made.”
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
However, “in any proceeding involving the surrender of Constitutional rights, it must appear from the record that the waiver was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made.”
Aaron L. v. Dcs, S.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Aaron L. v. Dcs, S.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., ¶ 20 (App. 2008); (“[I]n any proceeding involving the surrender of termination of parental rights and shall advise the parent .
State v. Toddy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Toddy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Tammy M. v. Department of Child Safety 397 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Tammy M. v. Department of Child Safety 397 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Sajna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sajna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶10 In State v. Avila, the defendant signed “a ‘Waiver of Trial By Jury’ and agreed to submit the determination of guilt or innocence to the court, based solely upon the transcripts of the preliminary hearing and the departmental report.”
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
P. 9.1; (noting that the record 17 must indicate a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of a constitutional right).
State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
1461 (1938)); see also State v. Avila, 127 * , (“[I]n any proceeding involving the surrender of Constitutional rights, it must appear from the record that the waiver was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made.”).
State v. Innes 260 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Innes 260 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Bunting is inapposite, however, because the error in that case concerned the defendant's right to be advised of her constitutional rights before submitting her case on the record
State v. Bunting 246 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Explained State v. Bunting 246 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
The question we address here is whether, prior to determining Bunting's guilt based on a submitted record
State v. Allen 220 P.3d 245 Ariz. 2009
State v. Allen 220 P.3d 245 Ariz. 2009
State v. Allen 207 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Allen 207 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
However, 24-25 , 1140-41 (1980), in which the defendant agreed to submit the determination of his guilt to the court based solely upon the transcripts of the preliminary hearing and the departmental report, the Arizona Supreme Court held that a trial court must inform a defendant of certain constituti
State v. Baker 170 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Baker 170 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Ricky Lee Sabin 146 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Ricky Lee Sabin 146 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
to those rights which the Constitution guarantees to a criminal defendant in order to preserve a fair trial.” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 237, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 2052-53, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854, 868 (1973); see 25 also Boykin, P.2d 1137 (1980) (extending knowing, voluntary and intelligent standard to all cases in which defendant waives right to a jury trial); , 375, (“[T]he knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver standard articulated in Boykin applies to all waivers of a jur
Daniel Y. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 77 P.3d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Daniel Y. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 77 P.3d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See, , (“[I]n any proceeding involving the surrender of Constitutional rights, it must appear from the record that the waiver was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made.
State v. Ossana 18 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Ossana 18 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Specifically, he claims that, because the motion to suppress was combined with the trial, in effect, he did not merely waive a jury, but submitted the issue of his guilt or innocence to the trial court on the record and, therefore, had to be informed of the range of sentences for the charges
State v. Conroy 814 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1991
State v. Conroy 814 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1991
including information concerning the range of sentence and special conditions of sentencing, applied not only to guilty pleas but also to cases in which a defendant’s waiver of a jury trial and submission of the question of guilt or innocence to the trial court on the record “has the same effect as a plea of *375 guilty.” , overruled
State v. Kinslow 799 P.2d 844 Ariz. 1990
State v. Kinslow 799 P.2d 844 Ariz. 1990
See rule 18.1, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure
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
State v. Zmich 770 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1989
State v. Zmich 770 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1989
287 , 66 L.Ed.2d 141 (1980); -25 , -41 (1980).
State v. Dosztal 697 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1985
State v. Dosztal 697 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1985
is to have retroactive effect.