Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Perez, 687 P.2d 1214.

274 citing documents.

State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 395 P.3d 286 Ariz. 2017
Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 395 P.3d 286 Ariz. 2017
(“The fact that the trial judge came to the proper conclusion for the wrong reason is irrelevant.
State v. Luke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Dillon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Dillon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P.2d 1214 (1984), Appellant maintains that a Willits instruction was necessary because, had the Coconino County Sheriff’s Office made a better effort to obtain the video from William S., the video might have been preserved.
State v. Luke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mammoth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mammoth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Manygoats Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Manygoats Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Felix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Felix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hargous Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hargous Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bolin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bolin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Robledo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Robledo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
2 ¶6 Robledo argues he is entitled to Rule 32 relief because he "did not discover the ruling in State v. Durgin until December of 2014."
Triyar v. Rem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Triyar v. Rem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(citations omitted) (“We are obliged to affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason.”).
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(explaining that appellate courts have the obligation “to affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason”).
State v. Hutchinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hutchinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Al-Zaidy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Al-Zaidy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Deng Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Deng Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mazzola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mazzola Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Earl Jefferson Causbie 384 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Earl Jefferson Causbie 384 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(noting we will uphold a trial court’s ruling if it is legally correct for any reason).
State v. Sales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Sales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
If a trial court properly denies a request for a Willits instruction, but does so for the wrong reason, “[w]e are obliged to affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason.” (citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Jamonte Lawrence Olague 381 P.3d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Jamonte Lawrence Olague 381 P.3d 269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Maez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Maez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West 362 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
See Hoskins, 14 P.3d at 1012; Bolding, 253 P.3d at 282; (“We are obliged to affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason.”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by