Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Conroy, 814 P.2d 330.

35 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Dewayne Esaw 554 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Dewayne Esaw 554 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
See Boykin, 395 U.S. at 242 (articulating requirements for constitutionally compliant change of plea); Avila, 127 Ariz. at 25 (requirements for constitutionally compliant submission on the record); (requirements for constitutionally compliant waiver of jury trial).
State of Arizona v. Brian Matthew MacHardy 521 P.3d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State of Arizona v. Brian Matthew MacHardy 521 P.3d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
as if they were pleading guilty.”
State of Arizona v. Rahim Muhammad 513 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Rahim Muhammad 513 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2022
“The pivotal consideration in determining the validity of a jury trial waiver is the requirement that the defendant understand that the facts of the case will be determined by a judge and not a jury.”
State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(jury trial waiver is valid only if the defendant is aware of the right and manifests an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of such right).
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Mack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“The pivotal consideration in determining the validity of a jury trial waiver is the requirement that the defendant understand that the facts of the case will be determined by a judge and not a jury.” (citations omitted).
State v. Sajna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sajna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
see also Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 17.
State v. Franklin 307 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Franklin 307 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
and that it be intentional.”
State of Arizona v. Guillermo C. Becerra 291 P.3d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Guillermo C. Becerra 291 P.3d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
To be valid, the defendant must “manifest[] an intentional relinquishment or abandonment” of the right, id., and must “understand that the facts of the case will be determined by a judge and not a jury,”
State v. Innes 260 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Innes 260 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Escobedo 213 P.3d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Allen 207 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Allen 207 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Such condition of mind [ ] will not be presumed from a silent record.” Id.; , (characterizing Avila as establishing that the “entire litany of Boykin rights” must be provided in all cases submitted to the bench on a stipulated record).
State v. Baker 170 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Baker 170 P.3d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Le Noble 164 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Le Noble 164 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
P. 18.1(b)(2), or an equivalent, , we find no waiver.
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
in order to preserve a fair trial.” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 237, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 2052-53, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854, 868 (1973); see 25 also Boykin, P.2d 1137 (1980) (extending knowing, voluntary and intelligent standard to all cases in which defendant waives right to a jury trial); , 375, (“[T]he knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver standard articulated in Boykin applies to all waivers of a jury trial, for that standard applies to the waiver of any constitutional right.”).
State v. Ossana 18 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Ossana 18 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
18.1(b), 17 A.R.S.; , (“Defendants waiving only the right to a jury trial need not be afforded the exact procedural protections provided to those whom we treat under Avila as if they were pleading guilty because they submit their eases for determination by the court on a stipulated record.”).
Benitez v. Dunevant 979 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Benitez v. Dunevant 979 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
*229 Waiver ¶ 22 Waiver of the right to a jury must be “knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.”