Cited by

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

125 citing documents.

Picaso v. Tucson Unified School District 154 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(guilty pleas “enhance judicial economy, protect the State’s resources, and promote justice for defendants, victims, and the State”).
State v. Bennett 146 P.3d 63 Ariz. 2006
State v. Bennett 146 P.3d 63 Ariz. 2006
(noting that one purpose of Rule 32 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” 15 (quoting Stat
State v. Ward 118 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Ward 118 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State of Arizona v. Samuel Phillip Viramontes 118 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Samuel Phillip Viramontes 118 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Febles 115 P.3d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Febles 115 P.3d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(stating that a trial court’s decision on petition for post-conviction relief reviewed for an abuse of discretion).
State of Arizona v. Rodney George Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Rodney George Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Virginia L. Ofstedahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Virginia L. Ofstedahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Finding that the trial court abused its discretion in so ruling, we grant review and relief.
State of Arizona v. Clayton M. Guilliams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Clayton M. Guilliams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Cazares 72 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Ernesto Luis Cazares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Ernesto Luis Cazares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Cazares 72 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Adam Albert Rosales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Adam Albert Rosales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
(trial court’s disposition of Rule 32 proceedings reviewed for abuse of discretion).
State v. Sepahi 61 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Sepahi 61 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Carl W. Morgan, Jr 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Morgan 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Morgan 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State of Arizona v. Carl W. Morgan, Jr 61 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Sepulveda 32 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Sepulveda 32 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Sanchez 24 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Sanchez 24 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Estrada 18 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Estrada 18 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Wiley 16 P.3d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Wiley 16 P.3d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Donald 10 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Donald 10 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a colorable claim — one that, “if defendant’s allegations are true, might have changed the outcome.” , ( , ).
State v. Saenz 4 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Saenz 4 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
(whether to grant a defendant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is for trial court to decide in exercise of its discretion); , (reviewing court will not disturb trial court’s decision to grant or deny post-conviction relief unless trial court clearly abused its discretion).
State v. Rosario 987 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Rosario 987 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
“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. Jenkins 970 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Jenkins 970 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
However, a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the petition presents a colorable claim — “a claim which, if defendant’s allegations are true, might have changed the outcome.”
State v. Soto-Perez 968 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Soto-Perez 968 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
(trial court’s order granting or denying post-conviction relief will not be disturbed on review absent an abuse of discretion).
In re Harry B. 971 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
In re Harry B. 971 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Bowers 966 P.2d 1023 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Bowers 966 P.2d 1023 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Ysea 956 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1998