Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Runningeagle, 859 P.2d 169.

119 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Edward Littleton McCauley Ariz. 2026
See Riley, 248 Ariz. at 166 ¶ 5, 202 ¶ 205 (determining a “graphic and celebratory account of the murder” that described the killing and was signed with “a large smiley face” and “Your hero the butcher” was sufficient evidence of relishing); (concluding trial court did not err in finding “especially heinous or depraved” where defendant “laughed as 48 STATE OF ARIZONA V. EDWARD LITTLETON MCCAULEY Opinion of the Court [he] came back to the car after having murdered” the victims a
State v. Petkovic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Petkovic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
A colorable claim has “the appearance of validity,” one that, if the allegations are true, would have probably changed the outcome, ¶ 11 (2016).
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Lewis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(stating a colorable claim is one where, if the allegations are true, might have changed the outcome).
State v. McKenzie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. McKenzie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶8 As to McKenzie’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a colorable claim of relief is “one that, if the allegations are true, might have changed the outcome.” (citation omitted).
McKinley Juner Phillips v. State of Minnesota 7 N.W.3d 577 Minn. 2024
State v. Qureshi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Qureshi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
A colorable claim has “the appearance of validity,” one that, if the allegations are true, would have probably changed the outcome, ¶ 11 (2016).
Israel Naranjo v. Hon. sukenic/state of Arizona 524 P.3d 1123 Ariz. 2023
Israel Naranjo v. Hon. sukenic/state of Arizona 524 P.3d 1123 Ariz. 2023
at he was 3, going on 4.” ¶7 Claim III(E): Naranjo argues trial counsel’s “performance was deficient in preparing for the testimony of Dr. Babich about low intellectual functioning.” ¶8 The PCR court determined Naranjo’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim in III(A)–III(E) of the PCR petition is “colorable and an evidentiary hearing is necessary.” (“The defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only when he presents a colorable claim—one that, if the allegations are true, might have ch
State v. Elia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Elia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Even if Moore’s confession made for a stronger case against him than against Elia, “there was also substantial evidence of [Elia’s] guilt.”
State v. Evans 506 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Evans 506 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
A colorable claim is “one that, if the allegations are true, might have changed the outcome.”
State v. Curry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Curry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
A claim is colorable when “if the allegations are true, [they] might have changed the outcome.”
State v. Calvillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Calvillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
2 STATE v. CALVILLO Decision of the Court ¶4 Summary dismissal is appropriate unless the petitioner states a colorable claim, ¶ 8 (2016), meaning the claim, if true, “might have changed the outcome,”
State v. Muldrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Muldrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(noting risk that evidence against defendant “rubbed off” on co-defendant was minimized by similar jury instruction); cf. Van Winkle, 186 Ariz. at 341 (finding trial court’s error in not severing defendants’ joint trial was not harmless because court failed to admonish jury “to keep separate the evidence ap
State v. Sanford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sanford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(curative instruction was 5 STATE v. SANFORD Decision of the Court adequate to alleviate the risk of prejudice from a joint trial; disparity in the weight of evidence against the defendants was not great enoug
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(stating that defendants are entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a petition for post- conviction relief when they "present[] a colorable claim—one that, if the allegations are true, might have changed the outcome").
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Democker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
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
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
A colorable claim is one that has “the appearance of validity,” —“one that, if the allegations are true, might have changed the outcome,”
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson 351 P.3d 1079 Ariz. 2015
State v. Gingerich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gingerich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Tywan Demetrius Woods 348 P.3d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by