Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fettis, 664 P.2d 208.

56 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/haniffa Ariz. 2026
State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/haniffa Ariz. 2026
–60 (1983) (defendant must be present to exercise allocution); (allocution is a protected right); (sentencing is a “critical stage of the proceedings”); (defendant has right to be
State of Arizona v. Analysya Contreras 557 P.3d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Analysya Contreras 557 P.3d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
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
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(“[T]he defendant must be present at his sentencing except in extraordinary circumstances[.]”).
State v. McShea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. McShea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶12 But Rule 9.1 enunciates only “one combination of factors” that “support an inference of voluntariness.” (affirming “position that a defendant who voluntarily absents himself from a trial may be tried, convicted and adjudged guilty in absentia” but “retreat[ing] from .
State v. Raffaele 471 P.3d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Raffaele 471 P.3d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
P. 26.9; (“[D]efendant must be present at his sentencing except in extraordinary circumstances .
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
the record provided an insufficient basis to determine whether a defendant was advised of rights articulated in Rule 9.1, a remand for an evidentiary hearing was necessary); (remanding for hearing to determine circumstances surrounding defendant’s absence), supplemented
State of Arizona v. Vincent Michael Allen 326 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Vincent Michael Allen 326 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
shall be present at sentencing.” Thus, even if a defendant is absent voluntarily, “the trial judge, except in extraordinary circumstances, must postpone the imposition of sentence until such time as the defendant can be present.”
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State v. Hatch 239 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Hatch 239 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Defendant again responded, ‘Tes, it is.” ¶ 5 Defendant’s attorney later inquired about defendant’s prior conviction in order to “draw the sting,” , , and defendant admitted the conviction.
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
State v. Forte 214 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Forte 214 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
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
with the court____The appellant failed to do so in this case, and she cannot benefit from her misconduct by manipulating a rule designed for her protection.”) (citation omitted); , ("Cook I"), supplemented, , (“Cook II"), and overruled in part on other grounds, , ("[W]e cannot be certain that [defendant’s] failure to appear at trial or sentencing indicates a willful intent to frustrate the criminal process or a desire not to be present at a time when he knew he should.’’) (citations omitted) (em
State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001
State v. Green 29 P.3d 271 Ariz. 2001
(citation omitted), , see also S.Rep.
State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Because the trial court could not sentence the Defendant in absentia, , it issued a bench warrant for his arrest and vacated the sentencing hearing until he could be apprehended.
State v. Adler 942 P.2d 439 Ariz. 1997
State v. Adler 942 P.2d 439 Ariz. 1997
See Bly, 120 Ariz. at 413 , 586 P.2d at 974 ; , (holding that a defendant could not be sentenced in absentia, absent exceptional circumstances); Ariz. R.Crim.
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
(“Cook I ”), supplemented, , (“Cook II”), and overruled in part on other grounds, , see also State v. Pena, 25 Ariz.App.
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
We have held that “defendant must be present at his sentencing except in extraordinary circumstances.”
State v. Hensley 774 P.2d 1347 Ariz. 1989
State v. Hensley 774 P.2d 1347 Ariz. 1989
It appears that defendant was not present on December 2, 1987 for sentencing on the armed robbery conviction
State v. Whitney 768 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1989
State v. Whitney 768 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1989
State v. Love 711 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Love 711 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Shedd 703 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Shedd 703 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Furthermore, , brought to the attention of the trial judge by petitioner’s counsel, was relied upon by the court of appeals in remanding petitioner’s case for resentencing.
State v. Belcher 706 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Belcher 706 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
The next day the sentence was vacated, and a , which banned sentencing in absentia.
State v. Roberts 698 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Roberts 698 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Swainston 676 P.2d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Swainston 676 P.2d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
While this appeal was pending, , holding that in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, a sentence may not be imposed on a convicted defendant in absentia.