Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Smith, 910 P.2d 1.

156 citing documents.

State v. Orduno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶14 Because a PCR review petition is discretionary, we don’t review for fundamental error, and fundamental error isn’t an exception to preclusion under the PCR rules.
State v. Friedel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Friedel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Smith, which Aguilar cites, stated a petitioner in a Rule 32 proceeding (as it existed at that time) had no “right to appointed counsel in a discretionary proceeding.” n.2 (1996).
State v. Baltazar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Baltazar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
P. 33.8(b) (pleading defendants must upon request receive any transcripts that courts deem necessary to resolve PCR claims); (pleading defendants are entitled to plea- proceeding transcripts); (pleading defendants are entitled to sentencing-hearing transcripts).
State v. Longhini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Longhini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
P. 33.16(c)(2)(B); -78 (App. 1991); (holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding); ¶¶ 40-42 (App. 2007) (same).
State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Curry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Curry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Reed 501 P.3d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Reed 501 P.3d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Granado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Granado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 12 (App. 2013); see also Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973)
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
P. 33.16(c)(2)(B); 3 STATE v. ANDERSON Decision of the Court ¶¶ 40–41 (App. 2007) (both holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Kittrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Kittrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(no fundamental error review in a post- conviction relief proceeding); (“It is the petitioner’s burden to assert grounds that bring him within the provisions of the Rule in order to obtain relief.”).
State v. Jacott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jacott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
P. 32.9(c)(4)(B); –78 (App. 1991); (holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
(recognizing the adoption of federal retroactivity 3 STATE v. ACUNA VALENZUELA Opinion of the Court severance is waived if the defendant fails to timely file and renew a proper motion for severance.” Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Covarrubias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Covarrubias Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
P. 32.9(c)(4)(B); ¶ 42 (App. 2007) (both holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Neal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Neal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Pogue-Fuentes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Pogue-Fuentes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(no fundamental error review required in post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Hussein Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Heitzmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Heitzmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hussein Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
2 (holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding); ¶ 41, (same).
State v. Rojo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Rojo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Flake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Espino-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Harwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Espino-Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (requiring the petition for review identify “[t]he issues which were decided by the trial court and which the defendant wishes to present to the appellate court for review”) (emphasis added); (holding there is no right to appellate review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Harwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
3 STATE v. HARWOOD Decision of the Court for review identify “[t]he issues which were decided by the trial court and which the defendant wishes to present to the appellate court for review”) (emphasis added); (holding there is no right to appellate review for fundamental error in a post- conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Flake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (requiring petition for review to contain "issues which were decided by the trial court and which the defendant wishes to present to the appellate court for review"); (holding no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Ojeda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ojeda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Manygoats Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017