Cited by

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

156 citing documents.

State v. Hazzard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hazzard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(no fundamental error review in post-conviction relief proceeding); ¶¶ 3 STATE v. HAZZARD Decision of the Court 14-17 (App. 2008) (an illegal sentence is not a lack of subj
State v. Manygoats Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jackson 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. Valdespino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Valdespino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); –78 (App. 1991); ¶ 41 (App. 2007); (both holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Barela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Barela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 41 (App. 2007); (both holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. King 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. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); –78 (App. 1991); ¶ 41 (App. 2007); (both holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Leyva 389 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Leyva 389 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
¶ 8 Rule 32 is “analogous to a direct appeal.” , 260 n.5, , 618 n.5 (1995)
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); ¶ 41, (both holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 41 (App. 2007) (no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); –78 (App. 1991); (holding that fundamental error review does not apply in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Pittman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Pittman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); ¶¶ 41-42, (holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding); (same).
State v. Harmon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Harmon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See also Bortz, 169 Ariz. at 239, 821 P.2d at 578; (both holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post- conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Keeten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Keeten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 41 (App. 2007); (holding no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Bragna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bragna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); (declining to address new arguments presented in a motion for rehearing after the court issued its original ruling on the petition for post-conviction relief); (same); (holding review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding is not required); ¶¶ 40-41 (App. 2007) (same).
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cochran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cochran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
for review shall constitute waiver of appellate review of that issue.” (no fundamental error review in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Muniz-Loera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Muniz-Loera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
P. 32.9(c)(1); (no fundamental error review in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(appellate court not obligated to search record for fundamental error).
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
P. 32.9(c)(1); (holding no fundamental error review in post- conviction relief proceedings).
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
P. 32.9(c)(1); (holding there is no fundamental error review in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
State of Arizona v. Richard J. Glassel 312 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Richard J. Glassel 312 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2013
STATE V. GLASSEL Opinion of the Court 458, (differentiating between direct appeals and Rule 32 proceedings); n.2, n.2 (1995) (referring
Stout v. Taylor 311 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Stout v. Taylor 311 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(Rule 32.4(d) entitles indigent petitioner to a transcript of sentencing proceedings); , (citing Wilson to hold that indigent defendants are entitled to a transcript of plea proceedings).
Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state 295 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2013
Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state 295 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2013
¶ 5, (“[Rule] 32.1 provides the review process for defendants who plead guilty.”).
State v. Bolding 253 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Bolding 253 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Regenold 249 P.3d 337 Ariz. 2011