Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Djerf, 959 P.2d 1274.

75 citing documents.

State v. English Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Petkovic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Petkovic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 35 (1998); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243 (1969).
State v. McGee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. McGee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 41 (1998) (“We presume the trial court disregards all inadmissible evidence in reaching a decision.”).
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 24 (1998) (“[D]issatisfaction with counsel does not, of itself, warrant a competency hearing.”); ¶ 38 (1999) (“Competent choices are not to be equated with wise choices; competent defendants are allowed to make choices that may not objectively serve their best inter
State of Arizona v. John Michael Allen Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. John Michael Allen Ariz. 2020
¶ 54 (1998) (stating that because the (F)(6) aggravator is worded in the disjunctive, “a finding of either especial cruelty or heinousness/depravity will suffice to establish this aggravating factor”).
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
¶ 120 (2006) (“Mental anguish is established if the victim experienced significant uncertainty as to her ultimate fate or if the victim was aware of a loved one’s suffering.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); ¶ 45 (1998) (noting that mental anguish “may also include knowledge that a loved one has been killed”).
State of Arizona v. Dauntorian Lydel Sanders 425 P.3d 1056 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Dauntorian Lydel Sanders 425 P.3d 1056 Ariz. 2018
¶ 44 (1998) (noting that “a finding of either cruelty or heinousness/depravity will suffice to establish this factor”).
State v. Bunescu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Bunescu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 13 (2013) ( ¶ 36 (1998)).
State v. Mack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Tammy M. v. Department of Child Safety 397 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Tammy M. v. Department of Child Safety 397 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
¶ 50–51, (inferring mental anguish from contusions and abrasions on victim’s wrists).
State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(holding “defendant's appropriate and rational responses” relevant to conclusion that defendant fully understood consequences of waiver).
Robert S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Robert S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Chairez 327 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State v. Chairez 327 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(“defendant’s appropriate and rational responses” relevant to conclusion that defendant fully understood consequences of waiver), abrogated on other grounds by Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 , 124 S.Ct.
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose 297 P.3d 906 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr. 291 P.3d 974 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr. 291 P.3d 974 Ariz. 2013
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
State v. Gallardo 242 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2010
See State v. Lynch, 225 Ariz. 27, 41 ¶ 79, State v. Djerf, 191 Ariz. 583, 596 ¶ 49, –05, –08 (1993) (“The fact that [the victim’s] hands were bound indicates that she was conscious and tied-up to prevent struggling.”).
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. Djerf, 191 27 Ariz. 583, 595 ¶ 44
State v. GUNCHES 234 P.3d 590 Ariz. 2010
State v. GUNCHES 234 P.3d 590 Ariz. 2010
at 359 ¶ 16, 207 P.3d at 612, a mentally incompetent defendant cannot validly waive the right to counsel, ¶ 21
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
State v. Cropper 225 P.3d 579 Ariz. 2010
¶ 59, (stating that evidence of defendant’s “vile state of mind,” shown in letters after the crime, rebuts remorse); ¶¶ 64-65, (stating that defendant’s tactical motives and statements of potential for future killing prevent finding of remorse).
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Tucker 160 P.3d 177 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
State v. Smith 159 P.3d 531 Ariz. 2007
See State v. Djerf, 191 Ariz. 583, 596, ¶ 49
State v. Newell 132 P.3d 833 Ariz. 2006