Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Morales, 157 P.3d 479.

100 citing documents.

State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 8 (2007) (explaining that for the purposes 4 STATE v. WADE Decision of the Court of sentence enhancement, the court must ensure a defendant makes an admission of prior convictions voluntarily and intelligently).
State v. Cline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Cline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Sy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Sy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Mendivil Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Mendivil Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Villagomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Villagomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶16 To show fundamental error, a defendant must “show both that the error was fundamental and that it caused him prejudice.” ¶ 10 (2007).
State v. Mason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Mason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Schoch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Schoch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
P. 17.6; –62, ¶¶ 8–10 (2007).
State v. Roeschen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Roeschen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Sutherland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Sutherland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 6 (2007) (explaining what the State must do to prove a prior conviction).
State v. Trimble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Trimble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-62, ¶¶ 10-11, 13 (2007) (absence of colloquy not prejudicial if convictions may be proved by other uncontested evidence in the record); -59, ¶¶ 11-12 (App. 2013); ¶ 26 (2005).
State v. Reidhead Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Reidhead Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Under that standard of review, “the defendant bears the burden of persuasion to show both that the error was fundamental and that it caused him prejudice.” ¶ 10 (2007).
State v. Aulbach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Aulbach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 6 (2007) (explaining that “[w]hen a defendant’s sentence is enhanced by a prior conviction, the existence of the conviction must be found by the court”); ¶ 15 (App. 2004) (holding that “prior convictions for sentence enhancement purposes must be established by clear and convin
State v. Maestas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Maestas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
P. 17.2(a)(2), 17.6; ¶ 10 (2007).
State v. Franklin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Franklin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶5 “A complete failure to afford a Rule 17.6 colloquy is fundamental error because a defendant’s waiver of constitutional rights must be voluntary and intelligent.” ¶ 10 (2007) (citing Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 568, ¶ 25).
State v. Bracy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Bracy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 11 (App. 2013) (holding that “an unobjected- to presentence report showing a prior conviction to which the defendant stipulated without the benefit of a Rule 17.6 colloquy conclusively precludes prejudice and a remand under [].”).
State v. Martens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Martens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Salinas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Salinas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
P. 17.6, 17.2; ¶¶ 7–8 (2007).
State v. Clayborn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Clayborn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“[P]rejudice generally must be established by showing that the defendant would not have admitted the fact of the prior conviction had the colloquy been given.” ¶ 11 (2007).
State v. Kirby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kirby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 13-703 (2016); ¶¶ 6-7 (2007).
State v. Marshall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Marshall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 11 (2007) ("[P]rejudice generally must be established by showing that the defendant would not have admitted the fact of the prior conviction had the colloquy been given.").
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 13 (2007), ¶ 13 (App. 2009), the appropriate remedy is a remand to allow the superior court to determine whether he would have admitted the prior felony if he were informed of the consequences.