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. Georgeoff, 788 P.2d 1185.

30 citing documents.

  • Faith P. v. Dcs, L.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Faith P. v. Dcs, L.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Sec., ¶ 16 (App. 2014) ( and 3 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite the current version of rules and statutes.
  • Shirley R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Shirley R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    (explaining that “[e]ven constitutional rights may, of course, be waived”).
  • Shawanee S. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 319 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Shawanee S. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 319 P.3d 236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (explaining that “[e]ven constitutional rights may, of course, be waived”); n.2, n.2 (App. 2011) (explaining individuals may forfeit or waive some constitutional rights through their conduct).
  • 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 plea agreement).
  • State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Brown 936 P.2d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Brown 936 P.2d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • 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
    our supreme court commented on the large number of direct appeals from plea agreement proceedings, stating: “The appellate process is taxed enough with the volume of cases that pose serious questions for resolution.
  • State v. Baca 926 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Baca 926 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    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.’ ” -38 , -89 (1990)).
  • State v. Flemming 907 P.2d 496 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Flemming 907 P.2d 496 Ariz. 1995
    and by the Arizona Constitution”); , , (same); , (holding that, although Morrissey requires a revocation hearing within a reasonable time after the probationer is taken into custody, delay was not unwarranted where it was the result of logistical difficulties betwe
  • State v. Sasak 871 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Sasak 871 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    -37 , -88 (1990) (breach of plea agreement not fundamental error that can be originally raised on appeal).
  • 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
  • State v. Lewus 825 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Lewus 825 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    the state argues that if defendant wished to challenge the amount of restitution he should have done *415 so in his petition for post-conviction relief.
  • State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 812 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1991
  • State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 812 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1991
  • Hovey v. Superior Court 798 P.2d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • Hovey v. Superior Court 798 P.2d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Ross 804 P.2d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Ross 804 P.2d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    2543 , 81 L.Ed.2d 437 (1984) (a defendant who is not fairly apprised of the consequences of a plea can challenge the plea under the due process clause)