DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. McCall, 770 P.2d 1165.

44 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
  • State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
    (concluding that it was permissible for a trial court to comment that a defendant’s allocution statement was not subject to cross- examination because it was simply acknowledging that the court was the “sole assessor of the credibility” of those statements).
  • State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    A criminal defendant does not have the right to “perfect counsel, only competent counsel,” and ineffectiveness must be “a demonstrable reality rather than a matter of speculation,” (citation omitted).
  • State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian Burns 344 P.3d 303 Ariz. 2015
  • State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
    We have held that a special verdict is not defective because it “does not discuss all the circumstances argued by the defense to be mitigating.” State v. Apelt (Michael), , ( , ).
  • State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Lee 917 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1996
    However, we have accepted Enmund findings that were not specifically labeled as having been made “beyond a reasonable doubt.” , cert.
  • State v. Hinchey 890 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Hinchey 890 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1995
    The purpose of allocution “is to allow the defendant to make a mitigating statement for the judge to consider in determining the sentence.” , cert.
  • State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Eastlack 883 P.2d 999 Ariz. 1994
    we addressed the issue of whether the trial court erred in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief, which alleged that the sentencing judge was mentally incompetent.
  • State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Michael Apelt 861 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Runningeagle 859 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Runningeagle 859 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Kiles 857 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1993
    While the judge should make findings enabling us to perform a meaningful review, we “have never required a sentencing judge to make detailed, exhaustive findings or cite every claim or nuance advanced by defendant or his counsel in argument.” , (citation omitted), cert.
  • State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Herrera 850 P.2d 100 Ariz. 1993
    “[W]e have never required a sentencing judge to make detailed, exhaustive findings or cite every claim or nuance advanced by defendant or his counsel in argument.”
  • State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Hill 848 P.2d 1375 Ariz. 1993
    While we continue to believe that trial judges should discuss all factors considered in mitigation, “we have never required a sentencing judge to make detailed, exhaustive findings or cite every claim or nuance advanced by defendant or his counsel in argument.” , cert.
  • State v. Lopez 847 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Gillen 830 P.2d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Gillen 830 P.2d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
    (defendant did not present evidence of bias or prejudice due to trial judge’s reading the presentence report prior to sentencing); -30 , -76 (1989), cert.
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Lavers 814 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1991
    1676, 1688 , 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1987); , cert.
  • State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Serna 787 P.2d 1056 Ariz. 1990
    State v. *270 McCall, , petition for cert.
  • State v. Marlow 786 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Marlow 786 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1989
    State v. Vickers, 159 Ariz. at 544 , 768 P.2d at 1188-89