Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Valverde, 208 P.3d 233.

162 citing documents.

State v. Robbins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Robbins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Joseph Javier Romero 381 P.3d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Julio Pedroza-Perez 377 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Julio Pedroza-Perez 377 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2016
¶ 10, (“If an appellate court finds structural error, reversal is mandated regardless of whether an objection is made below or prejudice is found.
State of Arizona v. Brian K. Hancock 379 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Brian K. Hancock 379 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Moreno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 11, (error is harmless “if the state, in light of all of the evidence, can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict”) (quotations and citations omitted); (“Statements obt
State of Arizona v. Demirus Ananda Koepke 377 P.3d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Demirus Ananda Koepke 377 P.3d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
1 1 It is not entirely clear from Koepke’s briefs whether her argument is one of complete denial of counsel, a structural error, & n.2, -36 & n.2 (2009), or rather an argument that counsel’s failure to strictly comply with Rule 38(d) constitutes fundamental, prejudicial error, ¶¶ 19-20, -08 3 STATE v. KOE
State v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Lowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Lowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶¶ 14–17 (2009) (defendant could not show prejudice so the court “need not address here” whether the trial court’s omission of an instruction was fundamental error).
State of Arizona v. Knute Eckhard Kolmann 367 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Knute Eckhard Kolmann 367 P.3d 61 Ariz. 2016
State v. Mayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 11, (citations omitted).
State v. Uriarte-Velazquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Uriarte-Velazquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 10 (2009) (citation omitted).
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Montoya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
For an error to be harmless, the State must show “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” ¶ 11 (2009).
State v. Key Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Key Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 12, ¶¶ 19-20, Alvarez, 213 Ariz. at 469, ¶ 7, 143 P.3d at 670.
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nissley 362 P.3d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Goettl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Goettl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 (1993)); ¶ 11
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald Vassell 359 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald Vassell 359 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
¶¶ 9-12 & n.2, -36 & 236 n.2 (2009) (discussing different standards of appellate review); see also Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 1003 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting fundamental error is similar to, but somewhat broader than, federal plain error 8 The state argues that the police vehicles were
State of Arizona v. Andy Daniel Almeida 356 P.3d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Andy Daniel Almeida 356 P.3d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Feliciano Ontiveros-Loya 352 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Feliciano Ontiveros-Loya 352 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Under that standard, the question “‘is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.’”
In Re John C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tacquard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In Re John C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Tacquard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Under harmless error review, we will affirm a conviction “if the state, ‘in light of all the evidence,’ can establish beyond a reasonable doubt the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.” ¶ 11 (2009) ().
State of Arizona v. Esteban Javier Terrazas 347 P.3d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Esteban Javier Terrazas 347 P.3d 1151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
& n.2, -36 & 236 n.2 (2009).
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
State v. Trotter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Overruled State v. Trotter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015