Cited by

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

1743 citing documents.

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.
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
State v. Velazquez 166 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2007
Alternatively, Velazquez contends that we should find fundamental error, which affords relief only if he “establish[es] both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice.” ¶ 20
State v. Le Noble 164 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Le Noble 164 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 17 , (distinguishing between trial error and structural error); ¶ 45 , (same).
State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State v. Andriano 161 P.3d 540 Ariz. 2007
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
¶¶ 19-20, (quotation marks omitted).
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morris 160 P.3d 203 Ariz. 2007
Morris bears the burden of persuasion and must “establish both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice.” ¶ 20
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Brown 159 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Brown 159 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 19 , (holding failure to object at trial waives issue absent fundamental error).
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Morales 157 P.3d 479 Ariz. 2007
State v. Morales 157 P.3d 479 Ariz. 2007
State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Miller 156 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Miller 156 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(defendant who fails to object at trial forfeits right to obtain appellate relief except in those “rare cases” involving fundamental error).
State v. Bartolini 155 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Bartolini 155 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Our supreme court has explained that “defendants who fail to object to an error below forfeit the right to obtain appellate relief unless they prove that fundamental error occurred.” n. 2, ¶ 4 , , 620 n. 2, (2005); ¶ 19 , (fundamental error review “applies when a defendant fails to object to alleged trial error”).
State of Arizona v. Robert Joseph Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Robert Joseph Wright 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 [the] defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.’” State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 19

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by