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. Anderson, 773 P.2d 971.

28 citing documents.

  • State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    It is an abuse of the process to clog an already crowded docket with appeals that could easily be resolved under the Rule 32 process.” -15 , -74 (1989); , , 1188 *411 (1990) (breach of plea agreement cannot be raised first by direct appeal but may be raised by Rule 32); Crowder, 155 Ariz. at 479 , 747 P.2d at 1178 (Rule 32 “proper procedure” to challenge validity of pl
  • State v. McCann 21 P.3d 845 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. McCann 21 P.3d 845 Ariz. 2001
    See, , , , -94 , -24 (App.1987) , -81 , -40 (App.1978); State v. Ellison, 26 Ariz.App.
  • State v. McCann 3 P.3d 388 Ariz. 2000
  • State v. McCann 3 P.3d 388 Ariz. 2000
    See, , , , -94 , -24 (App.1987) , -81 , -40 (App.1978); State v. Ellison, 26 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Jimenez 935 P.2d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Jimenez 935 P.2d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    163 Ariz. at 437-38 , 788 P.2d at 1188 -89 ( , ).
  • State v. Wilson 851 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Wilson 851 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    Georgeoff, 163 Ariz. at 437-38 , 788 P.2d at 1188-89
  • Peterson v. Superior Court 842 P.2d 1350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Peterson v. Superior Court 842 P.2d 1350 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Barnes 805 P.2d 1007 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Barnes 805 P.2d 1007 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Marty 801 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Marty 801 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    held that “a prior conviction, which was not challenged in the trial court on the basis that it was an uncounseled conviction, is entitled to a presumption of regularity for purposes of sentence enhancement.” Therefore, this argument was withdrawn by the reply brief.
  • State v. Conroy 797 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Conroy 797 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Georgeoff 788 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Georgeoff 788 P.2d 1185 Ariz. 1990
    1 See Rule 32.1, Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S.; , (challenge to uncounseled conviction used for sentence enhancement, if not raised in trial court, must be challenged by petition for post-conviction relief under Rule 32).
  • 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. Flores 772 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Flores 772 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    However, even if the record were silent regarding representation, , that a prior conviction, not challenged in the trial court as an uncounseled conviction, is entitled to a presumption of regularity for purposes of sentence enhancement.