Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ysea, 956 P.2d 499.

25 citing documents.

State v. Sajovic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Sajovic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
And “[t]o establish prejudice in the context of a plea agreement, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that except for his lawyer’s error he would not have waived his right to trial and entered a plea.” ¶ 17 (1998), superseded on other grounds by statute, A.R.S.
State v. Rady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Rady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
And “[t]o establish prejudice in the context of a plea agreement, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that except for his lawyer’s error he would not have waived his right to trial and entered a plea.” ¶ 17 (1998), ¶ 44 (2000).
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
And, “[t]o establish prejudice in the context of a plea agreement, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that except for his lawyer’s error he would not have waived his right to trial and entered a plea.” ¶ 17 (1998), superseded on other grounds by statute, A.R.S.
State v. Lunsford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Lunsford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“To establish prejudice in the context of a plea agreement, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that except for his lawyer’s error he would not have waived his right to trial and entered a plea.” ¶ 17 (1998), superseded by statute on other grounds, (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 (1985)).
State v. Perez-Tapia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Perez-Tapia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
superseded by statute (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Pierre Banda 307 P.3d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Pierre Banda 307 P.3d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
See State 6 v. Ysea, ¶¶ 15, 17, State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406, ¶¶ 9, 14, 1200 (App. 2000).
State v. Flores 188 P.3d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Flores 188 P.3d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
§ 13-1002(A); ¶ 12 , superseded by statute on other grounds, A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Cesar Francisco Rubiano 150 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Cesar Francisco Rubiano 150 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
See Kercheval, 274 U.S. at 224, 47 S. Ct. at 583 (defendant is bound by plea, “[b]ut, on timely application, the court will vacate a plea of guilty shown to have been unfairly obtained or given through ignorance, fear or inadvertence”); ¶¶ 23-24, (recognizing a defendant may seek post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim.
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Donald 10 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Donald 10 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See, ¶¶ 23-24 , -52 , -62 (1985).
State v. Martinez 999 P.2d 795 Ariz. 2000
State v. Martinez 999 P.2d 795 Ariz. 2000
¶ 44 , to support his McKinney argument.
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
State v. Bowers 966 P.2d 1023 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Bowers 966 P.2d 1023 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶21 Our conclusion is bolstered by the very recent decision of our supreme court, , in which the court, relying on Hill , set aside a plea of guilty based on misadviee of counsel because the petitioner had shown a reasonable probability that except for his lawyer’s error he would not have waived his right to trial.