Cited by

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

223 citing documents.

State v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Craft Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez 278 P.3d 1276 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez 278 P.3d 1276 Ariz. 2012
(“To obtain an evidentiary hearing, a petitioner must make a colorable showing that the [factual] allegations, if true, would have changed the verdict.”); (“Rule 32 has as its aim the establishment of proceedings to determine the facts underlying a defendant’s claim for relief when such facts are not otherwise available.
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State of Arizona v. Anthony Sanchez Bejarano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Anthony Sanchez Bejarano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
See Tvedt, (petition for special action is only avenue for review of non- appealable order); (on review of court of appeals decision in special action, supreme court concluded trial court abused discretion in precluding state’s witness for Rule 15 violation).6 And, if its grievance arises on the verge of a trial, the state may move to stay the proceedings, first in the tria
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Scott Douglas Nordstrom v. State of Arizona 155 P.3d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Scott Douglas Nordstrom v. State of Arizona 155 P.3d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
6 presiding judge.”); (judge previously noticed and removed pursuant to Rule 10.2 later violated Rule 10.6 by answering jury question and receiving verdict while “fill[ing] in” for trial judge, but no reversal required when defense failed to object to first judge’s improper “reentry into the matter”); St
State of Arizona v. Cesar Francisco Rubiano 150 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Cesar Francisco Rubiano 150 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
See State v. Schrock, 149 Ariz. 433, 441
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
719 P.2d - 38 - 1049, 1056 (1986).
State v. Febles 115 P.3d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Febles 115 P.3d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Armstrong 93 P.3d 1061 Ariz. 2004
State v. Smyers 86 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2004
State v. Smyers 86 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2004
4 Correll, 148 Ariz. at 475, 715 P.2d at 728; Allie, 147 Ariz. at 327, 710 P.2d at 437
State v. Lucero 85 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Lucero 85 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Ontiveros 81 P.3d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Ontiveros 81 P.3d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
State v. Rutledge 66 P.3d 50 Ariz. 2003
1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965); , ( , )
Gonzales v. City of Phoenix 52 P.3d 184 Ariz. 2002
Gonzales v. City of Phoenix 52 P.3d 184 Ariz. 2002
State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Blackman 38 P.3d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
“[T]he statements must be examined in context to determine whether the jury would naturally and necessarily perceive them to be a comment on the failure of the defendant to testify.” , (citing State v. Chris *545 tensen, , ).
State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
“The failure to object to an instruction either before or at the time it is given waives any error, absent fundamental error.”
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
State v. Bass 12 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2000
State v. Donald 10 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Donald 10 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a colorable claim — one that, “if defendant’s allegations are true, might have changed the outcome.” , ( , ).
State v. Petrak 8 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Petrak 8 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Fragozo 3 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Fragozo 3 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
(trial court’s decision whether to grant or deny post-conviction relief will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion).
State v. Razo 988 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Razo 988 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Johnson 991 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Johnson 991 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Although we normally review a trial court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, , we review a question of statutory interpretation de novo.
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998