DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Shrum, 203 P.3d 1175.

116 citing documents.

  • State v. Maher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Maher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    –120, ¶¶ 3–23, –1180 (2009).
  • State v. Morris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Morris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    -120, ¶¶ 3-23, -1180 (2009).
  • State v. Aguirre-Tinoco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Aguirre-Tinoco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    -18, 120, ¶¶ 3-13, 23, -78, 1180 (2009) (finding that the trial court erred by granting relief after defendant dismissed his timely PCR of right, then filed a second PCR five years later challenging his sentence).
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Taylor Harden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Taylor Harden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • State of Arizona v. Gerardo Poblete Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • State of Arizona v. Gerardo Poblete Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    ¶8 We must then consider whether Poblete is entitled to relief under Rule 32.1(g), which provides relief when there has been a “significant change in the law.” “Rule 32 does not define „a significant change in the law.‟ But plainly a „change in the law‟ requires some transformative event, a „clear break from the past.‟” quoting State v. Slemmer, 170 Ariz. 174, 182
  • Jacob T. Osterkamp v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • Jacob T. Osterkamp v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    P. 32.2(a)(3) (precluding defendant from obtaining relief based on claim waived “in any previous collateral proceeding”); ¶¶ 5-6, 12, -78 (2009) (noting “preclusive effect of the dismissal of [defendant]‟s first [Rule 32] proceeding” on claim of illegal sentence; finding rule precludes relief on ground raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal or previous Rule 32 proceeding); Petty
  • State v. Dean 243 P.3d 1029 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State v. Dean 243 P.3d 1029 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    subject to limited exceptions____” ¶ 11
  • State v. Rios 237 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State v. Rios 237 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010