Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Schrock, 719 P.2d 1049.

223 citing documents.

State v. Worrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Worrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“We will not disturb a trial court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion.” ¶ 4 (App. 2007) ().
State v. Jenkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jenkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“A petition for post-conviction relief is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court,” and this Court reviews “a trial court’s 3 STATE v. JENKINS Decision of the Court factual findings for clear error.” –48 (App. 1995) ( ).
State v. Rojo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Rojo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Lechuga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Lechuga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hurley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hurley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“We will not disturb a trial court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion.” ¶ 4
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Criticized State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Darrel Peter Pandeli 394 P.3d 2 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Darrel Peter Pandeli 394 P.3d 2 Ariz. 2017
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Covey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Covey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
However, when doubt exists, “a hearing should be held to allow the defendant to raise the relevant issues, to resolve the matter, and to make a record for review.”
State v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Myers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶17 The prosecutor’s questions about Officer Ross’s communication with Myers were not intended to elicit testimony commenting on his right to remain silent, and the jury would not “naturally and necessarily perceive [Ross’ testimony] to be a comment on the failure of the defendant to testify.”
State v. Urosevic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Urosevic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(superior court’s ruling on a petition for post- conviction relief reviewed for abuse of discretion).
State v. Travis Wade Amaral 368 P.3d 925 Ariz. 2016
State v. Travis Wade Amaral 368 P.3d 925 Ariz. 2016
For example, with regard to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we have stated that “[a] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when he presents a colorable claim [—] that is[,] a claim which, if defendant’s allegations are true, might have changed the outcome.” ( ) (emphasis added).
State v. Roberson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Roberson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
that when doubt exists, ‘a hearing should be held to allow the defendant to raise the relevant issues, to resolve the matter, and to make a record for review.’” State v. D’Ambrosio
State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Armstrong, 208 Ariz. at 354, ¶ 41 (-37 (1986)).
State v. Alonso Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Alonso Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Patron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Patron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Spurling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Spurling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tomlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tomlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Specifically, “to be constitutionally improper the comment must (1) be adverse, in that it supports an unfavorable inference against the defendant, and (2) operate as a penalty for defendant’s exercise of his constitutional right.” ( ).
State v. Newhall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Newhall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
When doubt exists, however, “a hearing should be held to allow the defendant to raise the relevant issues, to resolve the matter, and to make a record for review.”