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. Mendoza, 823 P.2d 51.

30 citing documents.

  • State v. Leota 538 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Leota 538 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    (same); Gilbert, 172 Ariz. at 404 (“The most important factor to consider in whether a dismissal should be with or without prejudice is whether delay in the prosecution will result in prejudice to the defendant.”); (“The dismissal may be with prejudice if the defendant can show that he was actually prejudiced by the delay.”); State v. Wills, 177 7 STATE v. LEOTA Opinion of the Court Ariz. 592, 594 (App. 1993) (Dismiss
  • State v. Story Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Story Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Story contends his due process rights were violated because he was among a group of criminal defendants subjected to different procedural rules, based solely on the circumstances existing at the time of his trial; however, “[a] defendant has no vested right in any particular mode of procedure.”
  • Earl v. Hon. garcia/state 324 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Ring 65 P.3d 915 Ariz. 2003
    at 2720 (“[Procedural] refers to changes in the procedures by which a criminal case is adjudicated, as opposed to changes in the substantive law of crimes.”); , (“A defendant has no vested right in any particular mode of procedure.”).
  • State v. Cabrera 44 P.3d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Cabrera 44 P.3d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Harrison 985 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Clark 2 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Clark 2 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Denise H. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 972 P.2d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • Denise H. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 972 P.2d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
    overruled on other grounds
  • State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Spreitz 945 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1997
  • Hennessey v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Hennessey v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    The superior court ruled that Rule 8.2(a) was “triggered” by the date of arraignment, therefore it was not necessary to determine whether the city’s “inability to serve or arrest the defendant would be excluded time under Rule 8.4(a),” , ( , ).
  • State v. Lemming 937 P.2d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Lemming 937 P.2d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Snow v. Superior Court 903 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Snow v. Superior Court 903 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    Although dismissal with prejudice was proper in Petitioner’s prior case because of the strict construction of the 150 day *326
  • Williams v. Thude 885 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Williams v. Thude 885 P.2d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    (relation back evidence is necessary for the state to receive the statutory presumption of intoxication); , approved in part, vacated in part on other grounds, , (although the presumption may not be unreasonable, it cannot be the basis of a jury instruction without evidence relating the blood alcohol back to the time of the arrest).
  • Humble v. Superior Court 880 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Humble v. Superior Court 880 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    See, , (defendant appealed from DUI conviction contending trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rules).
  • State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
    See, , (overruling the interpretation of Rule 8.2(a), Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S., , ).
  • Hedlund v. Sheldon 840 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1992
  • Hedlund v. Sheldon 840 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1992
    See, , (overruling the interpretation of Rule 8.2(a), Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S., , ).