Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Canion v. Cole, 115 P.3d 1261.

125 citing documents.

State v. Villareal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (a petition must state “the issues which were decided by the trial court and which the defendant wishes to present to the appellate court for review”); n.4, ¶ 12 (App. 2010) (declining to address an argument not presented in petition).1 ¶7 “[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11 (2005).
State v. Perez-Tapia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Perez-Tapia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11 (2005).
State v. Tetrick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tetrick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 11 (2005) (citation omitted).
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich Ariz. 2017
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich Ariz. 2017
Rule 32 of our criminal procedure rules “outline[s] the process by which a convicted defendant may obtain post-conviction relief.” ¶ 5 (2005).
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
rriger, (); ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (holding a petition for review incorporating trial court filings “utterly fails to comply with Rule 32.9” and rejecting summarily the claims raised), ¶ 10 (2002); ¶ 11 (2005) (“The insistence on compliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.
State v. Beasley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Beasley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 11 (2005) (“[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality .
State v. Heitzmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Loya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Heitzmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶7 “[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11 (2005).
State v. Loya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11 (2005).
State v. Gould Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Gould Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶7 “[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Torres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11
State v. Rojo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Rojo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Further, “compliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11
State v. Valdespino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Valdespino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11 (2005).
State v. Ramirez-Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramirez-Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11
State v. Volpe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Volpe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11
State v. Hutchinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hutchinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
2 STATE v. RAMIREZ Decision of the Court discovery in [post-conviction relief] proceedings.” ¶ 7 (2005).
State v. Duke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Duke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Freemon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Freemon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11 (2005).
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ochoa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11 (2005).
State v. Richardson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Richardson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶6 Because “compliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality,” and a petitioner must “strictly comply” with the rule to obtain relief, ¶ 11 (2005), the superior court did not err in summarily dismissing the proceeding.
State v. Andrada-Pastrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Andrada-Pastrano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Chaparro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Chaparro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“The insistence on compliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11 (2005).
State v. Bartels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bartels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11
State v. Denham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015