Cited by

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

100 citing documents.

State v. Lieser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Lieser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Valdez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Valdez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 10 (2007) (citing Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567, ¶ 20).
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bedoni Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bedoni Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 13, (stating that 4 STATE v. BEDONI Decision of the Court because “evidence conclusively proving [defendant’s] prior convictions [was] already in the record .
State v. Fouch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fouch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
P. 17.1(b); ¶ 1, (citing Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-62, ¶¶ 10-13, -82 (2007) (holding that when colloquy required by Rule 17.6 is not given, remand to determine prejudice is not required if record contains sufficient evidence of prior convictions).
State v. Ross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“A complete failure to afford a Rule 17.6 colloquy is fundamental error.” ¶ 10
State v. Sovine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sovine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Layman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Layman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Alcantar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Alcantar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
However, the omission “only requires resentencing if the defendant was prejudiced.” Id.; ¶ 10
State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Gonzales 314 P.3d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Gonzales 314 P.3d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
we hold that the trial court’s failure to conduct a Rule 17.6 colloquy, although fundamental error, did not result in prejudice and, therefore, does not require a remand.
State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-62, ¶¶ 10-13 , -82 (2007).
State of Arizona v. Rey David Villegas 281 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Young 282 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Young 282 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 8 , see Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-43 , 89 S.Ct.
State of Arizona v. Rey David Villegas 281 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
rules of procedure, the United States Supreme Court has stated that, when a pleading defendant fails to object in a timely fashion to an insufficient colloquy, a defendant seeking to rescind his plea agreement “must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76, 83 (2004); ¶¶ 10-11, -82 (2007) (adopting similar standard when no timely objection made to colloquy prior to defendant’s admission of prio
State v. Innes 260 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Innes 260 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 14 The State, however, , in ordering a limited *548 remand.
State v. Bunting 246 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Bunting 246 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 10 , (finding that a failure to *357 conduct a colloquy pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 17.6 constitutes fundamental error because "a waiver of constitutional rights must be voluntary and intelligent"); ¶¶ 14-15 , (A
State v. Allen 220 P.3d 245 Ariz. 2009
State v. Allen 220 P.3d 245 Ariz. 2009
State v. Geeslin 212 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Geeslin 212 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Osborn 204 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Osborn 204 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 7 , , (stating that the defendant’s admission on cross-examination of a prior conviction was “inherently reliable”).
State v. Smith 194 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2008
State v. Smith 194 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2008
6 Section 13-604(M) provides that “[c]onvictions for two or more offenses committed on the same occasion shall be counted as only one conviction for purposes of this section.” 9 Stroud, ¶¶ 20-21, -62, ¶¶ 9-10, -82 (2007) (holding that even when an attorney stipulates “to the existence of a prior conviction for purposes of sentence enhancement,” the judge’s failure to give the colloquy required under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 17.6 “is fundamental error because a defendant’s wai
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
State v. Baker 170 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Baker 170 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In support of its argument that the error in this case is not fundamental
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
we conclude that Carter’s sentence may not be vacated, however, unless he can demonstrate he was prejudiced by the absence of such colloquy.