Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Schrock, 719 P.2d 1049.
- State v. McCutcheon 781 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1989
- State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
- State v. Ikirt 770 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1989
- State v. McCall 770 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1989
- State v. McCall 770 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1989
- State v. White 770 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1989
- State v. White 770 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1989
- State v. Montijo 774 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
- State v. Montijo 774 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
- State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
- State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
- Matter of Pima Cty. Mental Health Serv. 757 P.2d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
- Matter of Pima Cty. Mental Health Serv. 757 P.2d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
- State v. Tucker 759 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1988
-
State v. Tucker
759 P.2d 579
Ariz. 1988
State v. (Joseph Clarence, Jr.) Smith
- State v. D'AMBROSIO 750 P.2d 14 Ariz. 1988
-
State v. D'AMBROSIO
750 P.2d 14
Ariz. 1988
Under Rule 32, a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if his petition for post-conviction relief presents a color-able claim, that is, “a claim which if his allegations are true might have changed the outcome.”
- State v. Littles 749 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1988
- State v. Littles 749 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1988
- State v. Leonardo 751 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
-
State v. Leonardo
751 P.2d 598
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
283 P. 711, 716 (1929); cf. Kauffm
- State v. Adams 745 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
-
State v. Adams
745 P.2d 175
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
(“[T]he parameters of cross-examination will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court has clearly abused its discretion.”) As recently noted by the Supreme Court in Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681 , 106 S.Ct.