Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Knute Eckhard Kolmann, 367 P.3d 61.

56 citing documents.

State v. Allee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Allee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 19 (2012); ¶ 8 (2016).
State v. Tupper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Tupper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 19 (2012); ¶ 8 (2016).
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 8 (2016); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Bermea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Bermea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Osborne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Osborne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Criminal Rule 18.5(j)(3) gives trial courts broad discretion in dismissing “a deliberating juror ‘due to inability or disqualification to perform required duties,’ and to substitute an alternate juror.” ¶ 17 (2016) (quoting the previous version of Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Gomes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gomes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 15 (2016) (“As a general rule, no one .
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Rule 18.5(h)(3) gives trial judges “broad discretion to excuse a deliberating juror ‘due to inability or disqualification to perform required duties,’ and to substitute an alternate juror.” ¶ 17 (2016).
State v. Campos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Campos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only if the PCR petition presents a colorable claim, State v. D’Ambrosio, which is one that if true, would have probably changed the verdict or sentence, ¶ 8 (2016).
State v. Mattox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Mattox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Phifer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Phifer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Wade 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. Calvillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Calvillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
2 STATE v. CALVILLO Decision of the Court ¶4 Summary dismissal is appropriate unless the petitioner states a colorable claim, ¶ 8 (2016), meaning the claim, if true, “might have changed the outcome,”
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
¶ 25 (2016) (holding that because the juror-misconduct claim, in that case, could have been raised in a post-trial motion under Rule 24, the defendant was precluded from raising it in the post-conviction petition).
State v. Getzen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Getzen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
And although a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to be present at trial, ¶ 12 (2016), he may relinquish that right if he is voluntarily absent from trial.
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. Leyva 389 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Leyva 389 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
“To state a colorable claim, a petitioner must show ‘both that counsel’s performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and that this deficiency prejudiced [him].’ ”
State v. Ogle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ogle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Although a trial court’s failure to instruct a reconstituted jury to commence deliberations anew, as mandated by Rule 18.5(h), is clear error, “the omission of such an instruction does not 11 STATE v. OGLE Decision of the Court always require reversal of a conviction.” ¶ 19, (citations omitted).
State v. Tracy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tracy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 26, (juror’s statements that she “was incapable of making a decision .
State of Arizona v. Donald Wayne Dalton 385 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Donald Wayne Dalton 385 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2016
As we recently stated, “the omission of [the deliberate-anew instruction] does not always require reversal of a conviction.” ¶ 19
State v. Koley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Koley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Although failing to instruct a reconstituted jury to commence deliberations anew is clear error, “the omission of such an instruction does not always require reversal of a conviction.” ¶ 19 (2016); see also Claudio v. Snyder, 68 F.3d 1573, 1577 (3d Cir. 1995).
State v. Kaul-Arob Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kaul-Arob Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
___, ¶ 8, (Rule 32.6(c) allows for summary dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief “[i]f the court .