Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Watton, 793 P.2d 80.

125 citing documents.

State v. Quintero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Indeed, the superior court is generally “not required to give reasons for discretionary rulings,” n.3 (1985), and the “grant or denial of post-conviction relief is within the [superior] court’s discretion,”
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State of Arizona v. Larry Dean Anderson 547 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Larry Dean Anderson 547 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2024
¶34 In Rule 32 proceedings, a defendant states a colorable claim entitling him to an evidentiary hearing when “he has alleged facts which, if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence.” Amaral, 239 Ariz. at 220 ¶ 11; Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Stanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Stanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“A judge cannot fashion an appropriate sentence for a particular defendant if relevant information, whether in aggravation or mitigation, is withheld.”).
State v. Dumont Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Dumont Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶14 “A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when he presents a colorable claim, that is a claim which, if defendant’s allegations are true, might have changed the outcome.”
State v. Varela 425 P.3d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Varela 425 P.3d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
The trial court was required to accept these allegations as true, State v. Watton , , 328, and, in this context, a defendant is required to show only that he would have maintained his appeal, not that he ultimately would have prevailed on appeal.
State v. Warner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Warner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bivens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bivens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Collins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Collins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Benally Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Benally Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Smoots Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Smoots Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Travis Wade Amaral 368 P.3d 925 Ariz. 2016
State v. Travis Wade Amaral 368 P.3d 925 Ariz. 2016
For example, with regard to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we have stated that “[a] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when he presents a colorable claim [—] that is[,] a claim which, if defendant’s allegations are true, might have changed the outcome.” ( ) (emphasis added).
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
(“One of the purposes of a Rule 32 proceeding ‘is to furnish an evidentiary forum for the establishment of facts underlying a claim for relief, when such facts have not previously been established of record.’” ( )).
State v. Pelton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Pelton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Indeed, “[o]ne of the purposes of a Rule 32 proceeding is to furnish an evidentiary forum for the establishment of facts underlying a claim for relief, when such facts have not previously been established of record.”
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing, however, if the petition presents a colorable claim—“that is a claim which, if defendant’s allegations are true, might have changed the outcome.” see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Soto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Soto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Chairez 327 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State v. Chairez 327 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
the plea is voluntary and not the result of force, threats or promises” other than as provided in plea agreement); , (to be valid, plea agreement “must not be induced by any force, threats, or promises outside the plea agreement that change the voluntary nature of the plea”).
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez 278 P.3d 1276 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez 278 P.3d 1276 Ariz. 2012
“A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when he presents a colorable claim, that is a claim which, if defendant’s allegations are true, might have changed the outcome.” State v. Watton, 164 Ariz. 323, 328, ¶ 5
State v. Bowsher 242 P.3d 1055 Ariz. 2010
State v. Bowsher 242 P.3d 1055 Ariz. 2010
¶5 We review for abuse of discretion a trial court’s denial of a petition for post-conviction relief, but review issues of law de novo, ¶ 11
State v. Bowsher 221 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Bowsher 221 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Taylor 166 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Taylor 166 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Picaso v. Tucson Unified School District 154 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007