Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Holder, 745 P.2d 141.

74 citing documents.

State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Kerr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Kerr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(The rule that a failure to object waived all appellate review did not apply to “place an unreasonable burden on defendants to anticipate unforeseen changes in the law” and make objections that “would have been futile.” (quotations omitted)); (In federal habeas corpus cases involving fully retroactive constitutional principles, a defendant may be excused for failing to raise a claim “so novel that its legal basis is not reasonably available to counsel.” (quotation omitted)).
Lane v. Core Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Lane v. Core Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
may be raised for the first time on appeal.”
State v. Freeman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Freeman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Triyar v. Rem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Triyar v. Rem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Rule 7.1(b)(2) (allowing the court to summarily grant a motion if the opposing party does not file a responsive memorandum); (citation omitted) (“Absent fundamental error, error is usually considered to be waived on appeal unless it was objected to at trial.”).
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
applies when a defendant fails to object to alleged trial error.”); (“waiver principle applies to alleged constitutional issues, as well as to nonconstitutional issues”); (doctrine of waiver “applies to constitutional error”); (fundamental error review applies to alleged sentencing 5 error based on grounds not urged in trial court).
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Garza 163 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2007
State v. Alvarez 143 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Alvarez 143 P.3d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
applies when a defendant fails to object to alleged trial error.”); , (doctrine of waiver “applies to constitutional error”).
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
100 P.3d at 914 (addressing alleged Blakely error even though “[n]either party requested that a jury determine the aggravators beyond a 8 n.3, n.3 (2003) (Apprendi “issue was not raised either in the superior court or the court of appeals, and therefore was not preserved for our review”); (Even though Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986), had not yet been decided at time of defendant’s trial and constituted “a significant change in the law,” it was not “so nov
State v. Chiappetta 107 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Chiappetta 107 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Henderson 100 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
may be raised for the first time on appeal.’ ”) ( , ).
State v. Dewakuku 92 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Dewakuku 92 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Martinez 999 P.2d 795 Ariz. 2000
State v. Martinez 999 P.2d 795 Ariz. 2000
But even if it did, “a Batson issue does not present fundamental error and a failure to raise it cannot be excused on that ground.”
State v. Eagle 992 P.2d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Eagle 992 P.2d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(absent fundamental error, even constitutional claims are waived if not raised at trial).
State v. Hardwick 905 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Hardwick 905 P.2d 1384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
2347 , 85 L.Ed.2d 864 (1985); -83 , -41 (App.1987), vacated in part on other grounds, , but see, , (“[I]t has been held that there is no Fifth Amendment violation in a trial court considering at sentencing a defendant’s faEure to confess to crimes of which he has been convicted.”).
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
1578 , 128 L.Ed.2d 221 (1994); , *298
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
1 “Absent fundamental error, error is usually considered to be waived on appeal unless it was objected to at trial.”
State v. Verdugo 883 P.2d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Verdugo 883 P.2d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
may be raised for the first time on appeal.” , (citations omitted); see also Ariz. R.Evid.
State v. Anderson 850 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1993
State v. Anderson 850 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1993
State v. Harris 852 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Harris 852 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
When the Arizona Supreme Court reviewed defendant’s case on appeal in 1988, , — a case that did not cite to Arnett — for the proposition that a Batson issue does not constitute fundamental error “but must be raised at trial or it is waived.” Harris, 157 Ariz. at 36 , 754 P.2d at 1140 .
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
19 “Absent fundamental error, error is usually considered to be waived on appeal unless it was objected to at trial.”
State v. Jordan 828 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Jordan 828 P.2d 786 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Barnett 842 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Barnett 842 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991