Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Guerrero, 769 P.2d 1014.

30 citing documents.

State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
(observing that Rule 19.1(a) “contemplates the possibility of a different order of proceedings”).
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
State v. Acinelli 952 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Acinelli 952 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-71 , -17 (1989); Tucker, 133 Ariz. at 307-09 , 651 P.2d at 362-64 ; -47 , -46 (App. 1987); -45 , -33 (App.1978).
State v. Nieto 924 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Nieto 924 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
While Rule 8 affords defendants a procedural right, “it is not a shield by which the accused may avoid trial and possible punishment by taking advantage of loopholes in the law or arithmetical errors.”
State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
If a defendant wishes to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel issue, “he should ordinarily begin someplace other than in this court,” 160 Ariz. at 15 , 770 P.2d at 319 , , preferably by filing a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to rule 32, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1992
State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1992
(Roll, J., dissenting), vacated on other grounds
State v. Williams 819 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Swensrud 810 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1991
State v. Williams 819 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Swensrud 810 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1991
State v. Valdez 806 P.2d 1376 Ariz. 1991
In Re the Appeals in Maricopa County Juvenile Actions No. JV119590 & No. JV118201 810 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Campa 793 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Campa 793 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Andre v. Tucson City Court 797 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Andre v. Tucson City Court 797 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
a case involving driving while under the influence, the court held that Hinson does not require automatic dismissal when a DUI defendant does not receive a trial within 150 days of his arrest.
State v. Corrales 777 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Corrales 777 P.2d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Valdez 770 P.2d 313 Ariz. 1989
State v. Valdez 770 P.2d 313 Ariz. 1989