Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tudgay, 623 P.2d 360.

52 citing documents.

State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
rom the defendant’s girlfriend, proffered that he believed the defendant knew of the trial date, our Supreme Court said that “[e]ven if [a defendant] never actually received notice of the continued trial date, it was the [defendant’s] duty under the conditions of his release to maintain contact with the court and/or his attorney as to the trial date and any changes in that date.” (cleaned up).
State v. Combs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
But “[t]here is no requirement that a defendant receive notice of his rights after every continuance,” and “[e]ven if [the defendant] never actually received notice of the continued trial date, it [is] the [defendant’s] duty under the conditions of his release to maintain contact with the court and/or his attorney as to the trial date and any changes in that date.” (quotations omitted) (cleaned up).
State v. Curry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Curry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. McShea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. McShea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“Even if appellant never actually received notice of the continued trial date, .
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See, (finding requirements of Rule 9.1 satisfied by defendant’s signature of release order containing notice of right to attend and warning that proceedings could begin in defendant’s absence); Bohn, 116 Ariz. at 503 (same); –81 (1975) (same); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Rea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Rea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“Since there was a prima facie showing of voluntary waiver, and no evidence presented by appellant to the contrary, the court did not err in proceeding in absentia.”).
State v. Getscher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Getscher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“The trial court may infer that a defendant’s absence is voluntary if the defendant had personal knowledge of the time of the proceeding, his right to be present, and the warning that the proceeding would take place in his absence if he failed to appear.”) ( and Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Pintarich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Pintarich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
The court may infer that a defendant’s absence is voluntary if the defendant had actual notice of the date and time of the proceeding, notice of the right to be present, and notice that the proceeding would go forward in the defendant’s absence.”); ().
State v. Tepper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tepper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“Once a defendant’s knowledge of the trial date is shown, the defendant has the burden of persuading the court that his absence was not voluntary.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Mazzola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mazzola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Francisco L. Encinas Valenzuela 350 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Francisco L. Encinas Valenzuela 350 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Moreover, when assessing a defendant’s claim that his or her absence from trial was not voluntary, our supreme court has expressly referred to the personal notice provisions set forth in Rule 9.1 as “requirements.” -3 , -62 (1981).
State ex rel Thomas v. Blakey 118 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State ex rel Thomas v. Blakey 118 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(“Even if appellant never actually received notice of the continued trial date, ...
State v. Walker 95 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Walker 95 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
See Love, 147 Ariz. at 570 , 711 P.2d at 1243 (defendant’s failure to maintain contact waives right to be present); , (same; defendant claimed not to have received letter from counsel).
State v. Garcia-Contreras 953 P.2d 536 Ariz. 1998
State v. Garcia-Contreras 953 P.2d 536 Ariz. 1998
Rule 19.2, Ariz.R.Crim.P.
State v. Muniz-Caudillo 914 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Muniz-Caudillo 914 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 901 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 901 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
at 1060-61 ; -3 , -62 (1981).
State v. Ott 808 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Ott 808 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Bishop 679 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1984
State v. Bishop 679 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1984
If you fail to appear as required, the trial or proceedings may be held without you____” , (similar warning to defendant satisfied rule 9.1).
State v. Hall 665 P.2d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Hall 665 P.2d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Zavala 666 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Zavala 666 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
The defendant in a criminal case has the right to be present in the courtroom at all critical stages of the trial proceedings, , but this right may be waived if he voluntarily absents himself
State v. Ayers 653 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Ayers 653 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982