Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Yellowmexican, 688 P.2d 983.

60 citing documents.

State v. Becker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 12 (App. 2017); (recognizing statements to court at a change of plea hearing about voluntariness normally bind the defendant).
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
P. 33.2(a)(1); (“It is well established that entry of a valid guilty plea[] forecloses a defendant from raising nonjurisdictional defects.” (cleaned up)); (recognizing an arrest warrant defect as a nonjurisdictional question).
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Campos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
As the court explained in its dismissal order, the record reflects that during the change-of-plea colloquy, Campos acknowledged that he had “read [the] plea agreement in its entirety and that [he] understood its contents,” that he had “discussed [the] plea agreement with [his] attorney,” and that his attorney had “answered all of [his] questions.” (entitling courts to rely on a defendant’s responses at the change-of-plea hearing in determining whether a defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and inte
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Bonney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Claims regarding the voluntariness of a plea are meritless if the record shows the trial court questioned the defendant in accordance with Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), and the defendant’s responses to those questions indicate the defendant entered the plea knowingly and voluntarily
State v. Emedi 484 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464-65 (1938) (counsel); (counsel); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242–44 (1969) (decision to plead guilty); n.3 (1984) (decision to plead guilty); Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983) (right to appeal).
State v. Begay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Vick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Flowers, 159 Ariz. at 471; (claims regarding the voluntariness of a plea are meritless if the record shows the trial court questioned the defendant in accordance with Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), and the defendant’s responses to those questions indicate the defendant entered the plea knowingly and voluntarily); State v. Pr
State v. Granado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(claims regarding the voluntariness of a plea are meritless if the record shows the superior court questioned the defendant in accordance with Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969)); ¶ 18 (App. 2005) (to raise a colorable claim, defendant must establish counsel’s perfor
State v. Estling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Finally, Estling informed the court he did not “[have] any drugs, alcohol or medication in the last 24 hours[.]” (statements to court at change of plea regarding voluntariness are normally binding on defendant).
State v. Acuna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(noting defendant’s statements to the court during a change of plea colloquy regarding voluntariness are normally binding).
State v. Brock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wauneka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(statements to the court at a change of plea hearing regarding the voluntariness of the plea are normally binding on the defendant).
State v. Douglas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Neal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Marques Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Benjamin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
At the change of plea hearing, the judge asked Benjamin whether anyone had forced, threatened or coerced her guilty plea and she responded “No.” “A defendant must not tell the judge that [her] plea is entered into voluntarily if it is not.”
State v. Perez-Tapia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Bunescu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Czarniecki Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Scroggins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Valdez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“A defendant must not tell the judge that his plea is entered into voluntarily if it is not.”).
State v. Barriga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sullivan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Soto-Portillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cecena-Cota Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶6 Cecena-Cota did not raise this issue in the petition for post-conviction relief he filed in the trial court.
State v. Chairez 327 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(“defendant’s appropriate and rational responses” relevant to conclusion that defendant fully understood consequences of waiver), abrogated on other grounds by Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 , 124 S.Ct.
State of Arizona v. Craig Michael Stefanovich 302 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr. 291 P.3d 974 Ariz. 2013
( ); (holding that a reviewing court can consider the record, and not only plea colloquy, to determine if there is a factual basis for a plea).
State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
94 n. 3, , 986 n. 3 (1984); , see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 , 106 S.Ct.
State v. Carter 165 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(“It is well established that entry of a valid guilty plea forecloses a defendant from raising nonjurisdictional defects.”) (footnote omitted).
State v. Wiley 16 P.3d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Rosario 987 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Safety, 190 Ariz. *308 at 494, 949 P.2d at 987 ; , adopted and approved
Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
960, 965 , 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981); , (a statute is retroactive if it applies “to events occurring before its enactment” and “disadvantagefs] the offender”), adopted and approved
State v. Olvera 952 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Olvera 952 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
2446, 2451 , 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987); , adopted and approved
State v. Griffith 880 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Noble 829 P.2d 1217 Ariz. 1992
State v. Noble 829 P.2d 1217 Ariz. 1992
3 -07 , -99 (Ct.App.1984), adopted and approved
State v. Campa 814 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1991
In doing so, he relies heavily on State v. Yellowmexican, in which the court of appeals referred to § 28-692.01(F) as an enhancement statute “also commonly referred to as a recidivist statute,” and also referred to § 13-604 as the “general recidivist statute of Arizona’s new criminal code.” , opinion adopted and approved
State v. Noble 808 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Noble 808 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. McCuin 808 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991