DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Prince, 689 P.2d 515.

28 citing documents.

  • State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ("[B]efore there can be a waiver, the record must show a knowing waiver by the defendant.") (emphasis added); ¶ 9 (App. 2007) ("[W]e must examine the record to determine whether Baker effectively waived his constitutional right.") (emphasis added).
  • State v. Soliz 219 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2009
  • State v. Soliz 219 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2009
    B ¶8 When determining whether a sentence of thirty years or more is authorized and thus a twelve-member jury is required under Article 2, Section 23, courts take into account sentencing enhancements, and whether consecutive sentences can be imposed for multiple offenses, see State v. Henley, 141 Ariz. 465, 468
  • State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    ¶34 , , this court held in Smith that the right to a twelve-person jury could only be waived by direct colloquy with the defendant pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 18.1(B).
  • State v. Price 183 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • State v. Price 183 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    In determining the length of a defendant’s potential sentence, we take into account allegations of sentence enhancements, , and whether the sentences could be imposed consecutively.
  • State v. Kuck 129 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • State v. Kuck 129 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • State v. Kuck 110 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Kuck 110 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Munninger 104 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    1019 ); ¶ 16 , ("[B]efore there can be a waiver, the record must show a knowing waiver by defendant.") ( , ).
  • State v. Maldonado 78 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Maldonado 78 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    Smith, 197 Ariz. at 338 -39 ¶ 16, 4 P.3d at 393 -94 ( , ).
  • In Re Alton D. 994 P.2d 402 Ariz. 2000
  • In Re Alton D. 994 P.2d 402 Ariz. 2000
    See, , (holding a criminal defendant may knowingly waive the right to be tried by a twelve-member jury); , (holding that although the “right to a jury trial is a fundamental right secured ...
  • State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Reid 747 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Reid 747 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Nirschel 745 P.2d 953 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Nirschel 745 P.2d 953 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Smith 687 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Smith 687 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984