Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Pope, 635 P.2d 846.

30 citing documents.

State v. Parise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Parise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
P. 32.16(a)(1) (establishing a 30-day deadline after entry of the superior court’s final decision for a party to file a petition for review); (explaining time limits are not jurisdictional in post-conviction relief proceedings).
State v. Mammoth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mammoth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Id.; (denying relief upon review of the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief where petitioner failed to meet the “heavy burden in showing the court why the non-compliance [with the timelines set forth in Rule 32.9] should be excused”) ( ); ¶ 4, (claim of illegal sentence must be timely presented).
State v. Hutchinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hutchinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Id.; (denying relief upon review of the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief where petitioner failed to meet the “heavy burden in showing the court why the non-compliance [with the timelines set forth in Rule 32.9] should be excused”) (); ¶ 4 (2008) (claim of illegal sentence must be timely presented).
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(denying relief upon review of the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief where petitioner failed to meet the “heavy burden in showing the court why the non-compliance [with the timelines set forth in Rule 32.9] should be excused”) ().
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez 278 P.3d 1276 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez 278 P.3d 1276 Ariz. 2012
[is] not among them.”), - 56, -49 (1981).
State v. Herrera 905 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Herrera 905 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(Rule 32.9 time limits are not jurisdictional).
State v. Padilla 859 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Padilla 859 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Bortz 821 P.2d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Bortz 821 P.2d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Zuniga 786 P.2d 956 Ariz. 1990
State v. Zuniga 786 P.2d 956 Ariz. 1990
disapproved on other grounds
State v. Garcia 731 P.2d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Garcia 731 P.2d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
overruled on other grounds, State v. Pope, 130 Ariz.- 253
State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
1515 , 47 L.Ed.2d 766 (1976), and it is not designed to afford a second appeal, , vacated on other grounds
State v. Vasquez 690 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Vasquez 690 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
the Arizona Supreme Court held that the time limits for filing a motion for rehearing pursuant to Rule 32.9(a) were not jurisdictional and, if a valid reason for noncompliance with the time limit is shown, the trial court may allow a late filing of the motion.
United Asphalt v. Industrial Commission 685 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
United Asphalt v. Industrial Commission 685 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
469 , , In re Trull, 21 Ariz.App.
Cook v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 651 P.2d 365 Ariz. 1982
Cook v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 651 P.2d 365 Ariz. 1982
we held that the “big firm rule” can apply to the public defenders’ office when the mistake of a secretary causes an attorney to miss a deadline.
State v. Grange 635 P.2d 843 Ariz. 1981
State v. Grange 635 P.2d 843 Ariz. 1981
Since these time limits are not jurisdictional, as we have held this day, see State v. Pope, Ariz., the Court of Appeals could hear the matter.