Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Travis Wade Amaral, 368 P.3d 925.

182 citing documents.

State v. Worrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
at (e)(1)–(3); ¶ 9 (2016).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Alvarez Bojorquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Alvarez Bojorquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶15 A defendant raises a colorable claim for relief in a PCR petition, and is therefore entitled to an evidentiary hearing, when “he has alleged facts which, if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence.” -20, ¶¶ 10-11 (2016) (emphasis omitted).
State v. Sharp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Sharp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶14 A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he or she “alleges facts which, if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence.” 220, ¶¶ 9, 11 (2016).
State v. Estevez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
A colorable claim has “the appearance of validity,” one that, if the allegations are true, would have probably changed the outcome, ¶ 11 (2016).
State v. Estevez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Rose Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
To warrant an evidentiary hearing on the claim, the defendant must “allege[ ] facts which, if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence.” Bigger, 251 Ariz. at 407, ¶ 9 ( ¶ 11 (2016)).
State v. Cutrone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Cutrone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
To receive an evidentiary hearing, the defendant must allege facts that, “if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence.” Bigger, 251 Ariz. at 407 ¶ 9 ( ¶ 11 (2016)).
State v. Longhini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Longhini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 9 (2016) (addressing the former Rule 32).
In Re: Ms2020-000001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
In Re: Ms2020-000001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 11 (2016) (“If the alleged facts would not have probably changed the verdict or sentence, then the claim is subject to summary dismissal.”).
State v. Linville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Linville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
A colorable claim is one that, if true, “would probably have changed the verdict or sentence.” ¶¶ 10–11 (2016).
State v. Estell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Estell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
A colorable claim is one that, if the allegations are true, “would probably have changed the verdict or sentence.” ¶ 11 (2016).
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
P. 32.1(e)(2); ¶ 9 (2016) (requiring petitioners to establish, inter alia, they were "diligent in discovering the facts and bringing them to the court's attention" when pursuing a newly-discovered-evidence claim (-53 (1989))); (di
State v. Eddy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Eddy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Amaral, 3 STATE v. EDDY Decision of the Court ¶ 9 (2016).
State v. Milks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Milks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 9 (2016) (listing the requirements for a colorable claim based on newly discovered evidence).
State v. Matzdorff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Matzdorff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State of Arizona v. Ronald Bruce Bigger 492 P.3d 1020 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Ronald Bruce Bigger 492 P.3d 1020 Ariz. 2021
¶9 “The relevant inquiry for determining whether the [defendant] is entitled to an evidentiary hearing is whether he has alleged facts which, if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence.” ¶ 11 (2016).
State v. Bonney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Bonney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
“The relevant inquiry for 3 STATE v. BONNEY Decision of the Court determining whether the [defendant] is entitled to an evidentiary hearing is whether he has alleged facts which, if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence.” ¶ 11 (2016).
State v. Lovelis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Lovelis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Dumont Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Dumont Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Put another way, a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only if the petition for post-conviction relief presents a colorable claim— one that, “if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence.” ¶ 8 (2016) (emphasis omitted) ( ¶ 11 (2016)).
State v. King 480 P.3d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. King 480 P.3d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
at (e)(1)– (3); ¶ 9 (2016).
State v. Vick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Vick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
“The relevant inquiry for determining whether the [defendant] is entitled to an evidentiary hearing is whether he has alleged facts which, if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence.” ¶ 11 (2016).
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
P. 33.11(a); ¶ 11 (2016) (“If the alleged facts would not have probably changed the verdict or sentence, then the claim is subject to summary dismissal.”); State v. D’Ambrosio, (a PCR petitioner must present a colorable claim to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing).
State v. Estling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020