Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Henderson, 115 P.3d 601.

1723 citing documents.

State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
Because Armstrong did not object to the trial court’s failure to order these evaluations, we will review solely for fundamental error, which requires Armstrong to show “both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice.” ¶ 20
State v. Anthony 189 P.3d 366 Ariz. 2008
State v. Anthony 189 P.3d 366 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
7 Henderson, ¶ 19, (citation omitted).
State v. Barragan-Sierra 196 P.3d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Barragan-Sierra 196 P.3d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Tarkington 187 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Tarkington 187 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(argument not raised in suppression motion or at suppression hearing forfeited absent fundamental error).
State v. Moreno-Medrano 185 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Moreno-Medrano 185 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
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
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
An objection that is withdrawn is waived, and we thus review only for fundamental error, ¶ 19
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State of Arizona v. Lance Christian Hamblin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Lance Christian Hamblin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Fundamental error is “‘error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to [the] defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.’”
State v. Lopez 175 P.3d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Lopez 175 P.3d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Walker, 181 Ariz. at 481 , 891 P.2d at 948 .
State v. Simpson 173 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Simpson 173 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
“To obtain relief under the fundamental error standard of review, [a defendant] must first prove error.” ¶ 23
State v. Price 171 P.3d 1223 Ariz. 2007
State v. Price 171 P.3d 1223 Ariz. 2007
¶ 20 Because Price did not object in the trial court to the judge finding facts necessary to increase his sentence, he cannot obtain relief unless he shows “both that fundamental error occurred and that the error caused him prejudice.” , 568 ¶ 22
State v. Avila 170 P.3d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Avila 170 P.3d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 19 , (“A defendant who fails to object at trial forfeits the right to obtain appellate relief except in those rare cases that involve error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that the de
State v. Baker 170 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Soria 170 P.3d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Baker 170 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Soria 170 P.3d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Rojers 169 P.3d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. James Prentiss Coghill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. James Prentiss Coghill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Rojers 169 P.3d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
takes away a right that is essential to his defense, and [is] of such magnitude that he could not have received a fair trial,” ¶ 19 , the trial court’s ruling will be affirmed.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. THOMAS GREG McCURDY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
STATE OF ARIZONA v. THOMAS GREG McCURDY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
“Before we may engage in a fundamental error analysis, however, we must first find that the trial court committed some error.”
State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Fernandez 169 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Mikal Omar Rasul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Mikal Omar Rasul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Although Rasul failed to raise this issue below, and thus forfeited his right to appellate relief absent fundamental error, “[t]he improper use of two prior convictions rather than one for purposes of sentence enhancement constitutes fundamental error.”
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
Fundamental error is “‘error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.’” State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 19
State v. Salazar 166 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Salazar 166 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Carter 165 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Carter 165 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
The State argues that Carter failed to object in the trial court on either ground, , he cannot show he was prejudiced by fundamental error.