Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Homer Ray Roseberry, 353 P.3d 847.

87 citing documents.

State v. Lowery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
We review the court’s denial of relief for an abuse of discretion and will not upset its decision “if it is legally correct for any reason.” ¶ 7 (2015).
State v. Neidig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Neidig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
We will affirm the court’s decision “if it is legally correct for any reason.” ¶ 7 (2015).
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Matzdorff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Matzdorff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
We will affirm its decision “if it legally is correct for any reason.” ¶ 7 (2015).
State v. Price Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Price Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 7 (2015) (noting that an appellate court will affirm the trial court’s denial of a PCR petition “if it is legally correct for any reason”).
State v. Phifer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Phifer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶9 Turning to the claims Phifer preserved for review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the superior court’s denial of post-conviction relief, which may be affirmed “if it is legally correct for any reason.” ¶ 7 (2015).
State v. Coffey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Coffey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Tran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Tran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
3 STATE v. TRAN Decision of the Court deficient performance prejudiced him.” ¶ 10 (2015).
State v. Healer 440 P.3d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Healer 440 P.3d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
See State v. Roseberry , , ¶ 7
State v. Brissette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Brissette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 7 (2015) (“We will affirm a trial court’s decision if it is legally correct for any reason.”).
State v. Helm 431 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Helm 431 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See State v. Roseberry , , ¶ 7
State v. Redzinak 422 P.3d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Redzinak 422 P.3d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See State v. Roseberry , , ¶ 7
State v. Gould Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Gould Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 7, (noting that, absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb the trial court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief).
State of Arizona v. Darrel Peter Pandeli 394 P.3d 2 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Darrel Peter Pandeli 394 P.3d 2 Ariz. 2017
¶ 12, (“[A]ll mitigation evidence must be considered and .
State v. Leyva 389 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Leyva 389 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Soto-Portillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Soto-Portillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We may affirm the ruling “if it is legally correct for any reason.” ¶ 7 (2015).
Brown v. McClennen ex rel. County of Maricopa 373 P.3d 538 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Francisco L Encinas Valenzuela 371 P.3d 627 Ariz. 2016
Jason S Brown v. Hon. mcclennen/state Ariz. 2016
Jason S Brown v. Hon. mcclennen/state Ariz. 2016
¶ 7, (“We will affirm a trial court’s decision if it is legally correct for any reason.”).
Brown v. McClennen ex rel. County of Maricopa 373 P.3d 538 Ariz. 2016
508 ¶ 7, (“We will affirm a trial court’s decision if it is legally correct for any reason.”).
State of Arizona v. Francisco L Encinas Valenzuela 371 P.3d 627 Ariz. 2016
508 ¶7, (“We will affirm a trial court’s decision if it is legally correct for any reason.”).