DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Crowder, 747 P.2d 1176.

107 citing documents.

  • State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    32; , cf. James, 126 Ariz. at 354 , 615 P.2d at 651 (remedy for failure to advise defendant regarding parole eligibility is remand for evidentiary hearing to determine whether defendant was aware of special condition).
  • State v. West 845 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Smith 831 P.2d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. West 845 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    See, , (voluntariness issues); , (ineffective assistance issues).
  • State v. Smith 831 P.2d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    nother panel of this court, on its own motion, noted “that neither the plea agreement nor the change of plea hearing appears to have informed defendant of the amount of restitution which could be ordered,”
  • State v. Glad 826 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Glad 826 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    See *485 , which impliedly overrules the practice of reversal and remand that we followed in State v. Valentine.
  • State v. Fancher 818 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Fancher 818 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    the supreme court noted that absent other advice, where a defendant pleads to a crime which has statutorily prescribed monetary parameters, defendant would necessarily have reason to expect the amount of restitution to be within those parameters.
  • State v. Brown 816 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Brown 816 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Pac 798 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Pac 798 P.2d 1303 Ariz. 1990
    A *296 plea will be found involuntary only where a defendant lacks information of “true importance in the decision-making process.”
  • State v. Henderson 797 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Henderson 797 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    Instead, “[t]he law requires that a plea be made voluntarily, i.e., ‘with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.’ ” , (quoting Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 , 90 S.Ct.
  • State v. Watton 793 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Watton 793 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1990
    (“Where the missing information does not go to defendant’s essential objective in making the agreement, where it involves secondary or minor terms collateral to the decision to plead, and where it is not ‘of the essence’ of the agreement, it is in the public interest that the agreemen
  • State v. Conroy 797 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Wideman 798 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Conroy 797 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Wideman 798 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    His only objection had to do with requested restitution items which he contended “are not appropriate items for restitution.” Defendant relies on the following cases:
  • State v. Tellez 799 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Hernandez 789 P.2d 1079 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Hernandez 789 P.2d 1079 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Georgeoff 788 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Georgeoff 788 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1990
    we specifically condemned the practice of raising an issue concerning a plea agreement for the first time on appeal.
  • State v. Pac 785 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Pac 785 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Draper 784 P.2d 259 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Draper 784 P.2d 259 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Shuler 780 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Shuler 780 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Lee 774 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Lee 774 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Anderson 773 P.2d 971 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Anderson 773 P.2d 971 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Adams 765 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Adams 765 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1988
    *169 479 , (clarifying Phillips)
  • State v. Perkins 767 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Perkins 767 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. King 759 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. King 759 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Grijalba 755 P.2d 417 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Grijalba 755 P.2d 417 Ariz. 1988
    we qualified the rule enunciated in Lukens and Phillips : A defendant is to be informed of “any special conditions regarding sen-tence____” Rule 17.2(b).
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-110720 752 P.2d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-110720 752 P.2d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    our supreme court discussed restitution in the context of adult criminal guilty pleas.
  • State v. Horning 761 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Horning 761 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    Mr. Homing is entitled to have his appeal decided in accordance with “the law prevailing at the time of the appellate disposition.” , Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct.
  • State v. Pearce 751 P.2d 603 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988