Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Garcia-Contreras, 953 P.2d 536.

68 citing documents.

State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Put another way, a voluntary waiver 8 STATE v. GOMEZ Opinion of the Court of the right to be present requires true freedom of choice.” ¶ 11 (1998).
State of Arizona v. William Maurice Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
see also Ariz. Const. art. II, § 24 (“[T]he accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person.”).
State v. Gastelum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Gastelum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
at 318, ¶ 5; –49, ¶¶ 17–20 (1998) (finding structural error when a defendant was 5 STATE v. GASTELUM Decision of the Court involuntarily excluded during jury selection and unable to effectively exercise challenges to potential jur
State of Arizona v. Steven Ricardo Vallejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Steven Ricardo Vallejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. McShea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. McShea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
P. 19.2 (“A defendant in a felony or misdemeanor trial has the right to be present at every stage of the trial[.]”), but a defendant may waive her constitutional right to be present at trial by voluntarily absenting herself from it, ¶ 9 (1998).
State v. Rowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Rowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Venable Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Venable Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dillion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Dillion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Reed, 196 Ariz. at 38, ¶ 3 ( ¶ 9 (1998)).
State v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Brenda D. v. Dep't of Child Safety 410 P.3d 419 Ariz. 2018
Brenda D. v. Dep't of Child Safety 410 P.3d 419 Ariz. 2018
–49 ¶¶ 8–22 (1998) (recognizing that a criminal defendant has a due process right to be present at the defendant’s trial and finding a violation of that right when a defendant who had not waived that right was absent during the entire jury selection proceeding).
State v. Tepper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tepper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Valandingham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Valandingham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-47, ¶ 8 (1998) (citing Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 512 (1976), ).
State v. Kirby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kirby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Garcia–Contreras, ¶ 9 (1998).
State v. Cohn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cohn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
to ascertain the impact of the constitutional violation on the overall structure of the criminal proceeding.” ¶ 16 (1998) (quoting Hegler v. Borg, 50 F.3d 1472, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995)).
State v. Dickenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dickenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Garcia– Contreras, ¶ 9
State v. Talibuddin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Talibuddin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
6, 14; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 24; ¶ 8, see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
[and] requires true freedom of choice.” ¶ 11
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
P. 19.2; State v. Garcia-Contreras, 3 191 Ariz. 144, 146 ¶ 8
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Rodney Eugene Hardy 283 P.3d 12 Ariz. 2012
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 629 (2005) (visible restraints); Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 504-06 (1976) (jail garb); State v. Gomez, 211 Ariz. 494, 502–03 ¶¶ 40–41, –40 (2005) 25 (visible restraints); -47 ¶ 8, -39 (1998) (jail garb).
State v. Forte 214 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Forte 214 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009