Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. D'AMBROSIO, 750 P.2d 14.

90 citing documents.

State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“A decision as to whether a petition for post-conviction relief presents a colorable claim is, to some extent, a discretionary decision for the trial court.” State v. D’Ambrosio
State v. Osuna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Osuna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Osuna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Osuna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“A decision as to whether a petition for post-conviction relief presents a colorable claim is, to some extent, a discretionary decision for the trial court.” State v. D’Ambrosio
State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
that when doubt exists, ‘a hearing should be held to allow the defendant to raise the relevant issues, to resolve the matter, and to make a record for review.’” State v. D’Ambrosio
State v. Gingerich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gingerich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Stuck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Stuck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Given that the issue of whether a petition for post-conviction relief states a colorable claim is to some degree a discretionary decision for the trial court, State v. D’Ambrosio, such a determination is more 3 STATE v. STUCK Decision of the Court appropriately made by the trial court in the first instance.
State v. Doty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Doty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“[W]hen doubt exists, a hearing should be held to allow the defendant to raise the relevant issues, to resolve the matter, and to make a record for review.” Bowers, 192 Ariz. at 422, ¶ 10, 966 P.2d at 1026 (quoting State v. D’Ambrosio, (internal quotation marks omitted)).
State v. Soto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Soto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See State v. D’Ambrosio, (“A decision as to whether a petition for post-conviction relief presents a colorable claim is, to some extent, a discretionary decision for the trial court.”) (citation omitted).
State v. Chairez 327 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State v. Chairez 327 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Whether a claim is colorable and warrants an evidentiary hearing “is, to some extent, a discretionary decision for the trial court.” State v. D’Ambrosio
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez 278 P.3d 1276 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez 278 P.3d 1276 Ariz. 2012
See Watton, 164 Ariz. at 328, 793 P.2d at 85; State v. D’Ambrosio, 156 Ariz. 71, 73
State v. Bowers 966 P.2d 1023 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Bowers 966 P.2d 1023 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Krum 903 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1995
State v. Krum 903 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1995
State v. Rosas 904 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Rosas 904 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Johnson 890 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Johnson 890 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Vickers 885 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1994
State v. Vickers 885 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1994
But this fact, “standing alone, does not establish a per se violation of a criminal defendant’s right to receive effective assistance of counsel.”
State v. Bilke 781 P.2d 28 Ariz. 1989
State v. Bilke 781 P.2d 28 Ariz. 1989
A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his allegation of newly-discovered evidence if he presents a “color-able claim.” State v. D’Ambrosio, , -51 , -74 , cert.
State v. McCall 770 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1989
State v. McCall 770 P.2d 1165 Ariz. 1989
A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if his petition presents a “colorable claim.” State v. D’Ambrosio
State v. Wagstaff 775 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Wagstaff 775 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988