Cited by

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

186 citing documents.

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
State v. Estling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Calvillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Garcia Del Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Calvillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Garcia Del Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Acuna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Acuna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 11 (2016); see also State v. D’Ambrosio, (noting defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he or she presents a colorable claim.).
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. MacIas 469 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. MacIas 469 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 11 (2016) (“The relevant inquiry for determining whether the petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing is whether he has alleged facts which, if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence.
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Caime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Caime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Coger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Powers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Coger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Powers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Aguilar-Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Aguilar-Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 9 (2016) (citations omitted).
State v. Palazzetti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Palazzetti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Petrone Cabanas v. Hon. pineda/state 433 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Petrone Cabanas v. Hon. pineda/state 433 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Valencia, 241 Ariz. at 210, ¶18 (relying on Rule 32.8(a) ¶¶ 11-12 (2016) (discussing when an evidentiary hearing is required)).
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
¶ 9 (2016) (quoting Bilke, 162 Ariz. at 52) (listing the five required elements for a colorable claim).
State v. Varela 425 P.3d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Varela 425 P.3d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See State v. Amaral , , ¶¶ 10-11
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
P. 32.6(d)(1); ¶ 11 (2016).
State v. Benjamin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Benjamin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State of Arizona v. Kevin Artice Miles 414 P.3d 680 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Kevin Artice Miles 414 P.3d 680 Ariz. 2018
State v. Swatsenburg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Swatsenburg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Criticized State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
3 STATE v. NELSON Decision of the Court (1986), ¶ 10 (2016).
State v. Leininger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by