Cited by

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

1743 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Armando Galaviz Fierro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. William John Fiihr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶8 By failing to assert any constitutional claim below or object on constitutional grounds to the trial court’s failure to make specific findings, Williams “forfeit[ed] the right to obtain appellate relief unless [he] prove[s] that fundamental error occurred.” n.2, n.2 (2005); (“Fundamental error review .
State v. Smith 194 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2008
State v. Smith 194 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2008
V ¶21 For Smith to prevail on his claim, however, -68, ¶¶ 19-21, -08 (2005).
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Luis Enrique Ortega Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Robert Carlos Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Robert Carlos Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
was guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter.” Because Garcia failed to object at trial, we review the instructions for fundamental error only, that is, for “‘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 of Arizona v. Flythe 193 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Flythe 193 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(limited appellate relief designed to prevent parties from using curable trial error as “hole card” on appeal)
State v. Wallace 191 P.3d 164 Ariz. 2008
State v. Wallace 191 P.3d 164 Ariz. 2008
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567 ¶ 18
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
State v. Bocharski 189 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2008
¶ 19, (“Fundamental error review .
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

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by