Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Allen, 220 P.3d 245.

32 citing documents.

State v. Norris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Norris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 11 (2009) (“Parties routinely stipulate to easily proven facts, and courts encourage such stipulations[.]”).
State v. Gilbert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gilbert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243 (1969); ¶ 13 (2009).
In Re Pima County Mental Health Case No. Mh20200860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
In Re Pima County Mental Health Case No. Mh20200860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
(stipulations bind parties and relieve them of burden of establishing stipulated facts).
State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian Gunches 377 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian Gunches 377 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2016
(noting that stipulations are binding on the parties); ¶ 11, (“Although stipulations may bind the parties and relieve them of the burden of establishing the stipulated facts, stipulations do not bind the jury, and jurors may accept or reject them.”).
State v. Totress Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Totress Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 11, (noting that “stipulations do not bind the jury, and jurors may accept or reject them”).
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wooten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
.” ¶ 11, (“[S]tipulations do not bind the jury, and jurors may accept or reject them.”).
State v. Corrales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Corrales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
This means both sides agree those facts do exist and are part of the evidence for you to consider.” Our supreme court has held, “Although stipulations may bind the parties and relieve them of the burden of establishing the stipulated facts, stipulations do not bind the jury, and jurors may accept or reject them.” ¶ 11
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
must “be present and make a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver before” making the stipulation because it involved an element of the offense and “[w]hether the person who tested the methamphetamine was qualified to do so.” However, “[p]arties routinely stipulate to easily proven facts, and courts encourage such stipulations to narrow issues and to promote judicial economy.” ¶ 11
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Guinard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
n.2, ¶ 11, n.2 (2009); Rev. Ariz. Jury Instr.
State v. Hon. hancock/jennifer Ferrell 347 P.3d 142 Ariz. 2015
State v. Hon. hancock/jennifer Ferrell 347 P.3d 142 Ariz. 2015
¶ 13, (acknowledging that a defendant waives several constitutional rights when pleading guilty).
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Craig A. Williamson 343 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
“Although stipulations may bind the parties and relieve them of the burden of establishing the stipulated facts, stipulations do not bind the jury, and jurors may accept or reject them.”
State v. Cummings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cummings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 11, (“Although stipulations may bind the parties and relieve them of the burden of establishing the stipulated facts, stipulations do not bind the jury, and jurors may accept or reject them.”).
State v. Salazar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Salazar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 11, (citation omitted); see also Rev. Ariz. Jury Instr.
State v. Valdespino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Valdespino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 11, (citation omitted); see also Rev. Ariz. Jury Instr.
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. Bunting 246 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Bunting 246 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
[5] ¶ 9 , justifies the trial court's failure to advise Bunting of her rights under Avila because, according to the State, "neither Boykin or [Arizona] Rule [of Criminal Procedure] 17 colloquy is required in the absence of a guilty/no contest plea[,] or a stipulation to a prior conviction."