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. Smith, 910 P.2d 1.

156 citing documents.

  • State v. Regenold 249 P.3d 337 Ariz. 2011
  • State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    (“It is through operation of the rules governing post-conviction relief that our constitutional guarantee of appellate review in all eases is effectuated for pleading defendants.”); Montgomery, 181 Ariz. at 258 , 889 P.2d at 616 (for pleading defendants, “a Rule 32 proceeding is the only me
  • State of Arizona v. Flythe 193 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • State of Arizona v. Flythe 193 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    (appellate court not obligated to search record for fundamental error).
  • State v. Cropper 68 P.3d 407 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Cropper 68 P.3d 407 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Rosas-Hernandez 42 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    Id; *217 , (holding that because a Rule 32 petition is analogous to a direct appeal, an indigent defendant is entitled to appointed counsel for an initial post-conviction relief proceeding).
  • State v. Brown 986 P.2d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Brown 986 P.2d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Escobar-Mendez 986 P.2d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Escobar-Mendez 986 P.2d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Moreno v. Gonzalez 962 P.2d 205 Ariz. 1998
  • Moreno v. Gonzalez 962 P.2d 205 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Hernandez 959 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Hernandez 959 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Supinger 947 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Supinger 947 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Aro 937 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Aro 937 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Mann 934 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Banicki 933 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Banicki 933 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    State v. Tay *118 lor, -72 , -82 (1996); -60 , -5 (1996).
  • State v. Sabala 943 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Sabala 943 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Tinajero 935 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Tinajero 935 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Scott 930 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Jimenez 935 P.2d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Scott 930 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Jimenez 935 P.2d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    Our supreme court has made it clear that “[i]t is through operation of the rules governing post-conviction relief that our constitutional guarantee of appellate review in all cases is effectuated for pleading defendants.” , (citations omitted).
  • State v. Solano 930 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Solano 930 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Schwartz 935 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Schwartz 935 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Baca 926 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Baca 926 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    (“[a] pleading [or admitting] defendant ...
  • State v. Rocha-Rocha 935 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Rocha-Rocha 935 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Taylor 931 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Taylor 931 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Laird 920 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Laird 920 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1996
    (holding that the repeal of A.R.S.
  • State v. Tovar 930 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Tovar 930 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    This resolution is buttressed by the fact that fundamental-error review is no longer required, see, -60 , -5 (1996), and, thus, there is less reason to independently conduct a Rule 609(d) analysis for the *394 defendant.
  • State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
    have a right to appointed counsel in Rule 32 proceedings beyond the trial court’s mandatory consideration and disposition of the PCR.”); (“Our constitution does not require, and the rules do not extend, the right to appointed counsel for indigent defendants in Rule 32 proceedings beyond the trial court’s mandatory consideration and disposition of the PCR.” We find the court’s reasoning in Bonin to be persuasive: There is a pr
  • State v. Miles 918 P.2d 1028 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996