Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Stewart v. Smith, 46 P.3d 1067.

57 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Steven Ray Lopez 323 P.3d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
He further asserted his claim was not “precluded” by Rule 32.2 because his claim was “of sufficient constitutional magnitude” that it requires a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver, P.3d 1067, 1071 (2002).
State v. Shrum 203 P.3d 1175 Ariz. 2009
State v. Shrum 203 P.3d 1175 Ariz. 2009
¶12 “[T]o prevent endless or nearly endless reviews of the same case in the same trial court,” Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446, 450 ¶ 11, Rule 32.2(a) precludes collateral relief on a ground that either was or could have been raised on direct appeal or in a previous PCR proceeding.
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Adam Albert Rosales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Adam Albert Rosales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
(“Rule 32.2 is a rule of preclusion designed to limit those reviews, to prevent endless or nearly endless reviews of the same case in the same trial court.”).