Cited by

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

162 citing documents.

State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Solis 339 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶11 Although neither Bible, Ring, nor Henderson directly involved jury instructions, P.3d 233 (2009).
State v. Sovine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sovine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶11 On appeal, Sovine focuses on the statement “guilty until proven otherwise” and contends that it constitutes structural error because it signifies that his “defense lawyer abandoned him when he announced to the jury at the end of the case that [he] was guilty.” See, e. g., -85 n.2, ¶ 10, -36 n.2 (2009) (noting structural error occurs when there is “complete denial of criminal defense counsel”) (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Adolfo Noel Ruiz, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Adolfo Noel Ruiz, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
An error is harmless if the state can establish beyond a reasonable doubt, “‘in light of all of the evidence,’” that the error did not “contribute to or affect the verdict.” quoting Bible, 179 Ariz. at 588, 858 P.2d at 1191.
State of Arizona v. Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuela 334 P.3d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuela 334 P.3d 1276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Skinner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Skinner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Fundamental error is reserved for “‘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 defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.”’” ¶12, (citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Crispin Granados Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Crispin Granados Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(“Alleged trial court error in criminal cases may be subject to one of three standards of review: structural error, harmless error, or fundamental error.”); n.4, n.4 (App. 2004) (explaining similarities between federal concept
State of Arizona v. Victor Kyle Lizardi 323 P.3d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Victor Kyle Lizardi 323 P.3d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Ring III, 65 P.3d at 933.
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶¶ 12, 14, -38 (2009); ¶¶ 84-85, ¶¶ 65-69, -96 (2007).1 Although novel assignments of instruction-related error can sometimes rise to this level, we will grant appellate relief only in tho
State of Arizona v. Reuben Renee Cota 319 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Reuben Renee Cota 319 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
The court then reduced all “fees, assessments and/or restitution” to a CRO, specifying that “no interest, penalties, or collection fees” would accrue during the defendant’s incarceration.2 1Cota does not assert that the alleged error was structural, and thus presumptively prejudicial, nor would we find it to be so.
State of Arizona v. Stephen Vincent Haverstick 318 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Stephen Vincent Haverstick 318 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 316 P.3d 1219 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 316 P.3d 1219 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown 310 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown 310 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angel Antonio Perez 308 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angel Antonio Perez 308 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
We review a claim based on an incorrect jury instruction for harmless error.1
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
State v. James 297 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. James 297 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 16 , Ontiveros, 206 Ariz. at 542-43, ¶¶ 18-19 , 81 P.3d at 333-34 .
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(“An 5 U.S. 39, 49-50 & 49 n.9 (1984)
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rohan Livingston Butler 286 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
See State v. Valverde, 220 Ariz. 6 582, ¶ 12, (under fundamental error review, “[t]he defendant bears the burden of proving both that the error was fundamental and that the error caused him prejudice”).
State v. VanWinkle 273 P.3d 1148 Ariz. 2012
State v. VanWinkle 273 P.3d 1148 Ariz. 2012
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.” , 585 ¶ 11, (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. SOSNOWICZ 270 P.3d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. SOSNOWICZ 270 P.3d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
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.” ¶ 11 , (citation and internal quotation omitted).
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
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(finding no prejudice in failure to instruct jury regarding defendant‟s burden of proving self-defense).
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
An error is harmless only when the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury’s decision “was surely unattributable to the error.” ¶ 11, ( ¶ 39, ).
State v. Diaz 224 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2010
State v. Diaz 224 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2010
III ¶11 “Alleged trial court error in criminal cases may be subject to one of three standards of review: structural error, harmless error, or fundamental error.” ¶ 9
State v. Soliz 219 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2009
State v. Soliz 219 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2009
¶ 10, (“If error is structural, prejudice is presumed.”).