Cited by

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

117 citing documents.

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
State v. Denham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11
State v. Edmondson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Edmondson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11
State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz 340 P.3d 1069 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz 340 P.3d 1069 Ariz. 2014
¶ 11, (noting that a PCR petition triggers consideration of PCR claims and related discovery requests).
Milke v. Mroz 339 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Milke v. Mroz 339 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 8 , (“The Court of Appeals found, and the State acknowledges, an ethical and constitutional obligation to disclose clearly exculpatory material that comes to its attention after the sentencing has occurred, and we affirm that the State does bear such a duty.”) (internal citation omit
State v. Karban Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014