Cited by

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

125 citing documents.

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
State v. Karban Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11
State v. Settle II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Settle II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11
State v. Frank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Frank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
2 STATE v. FORD Decision of the Court “[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11
State v. Schneider Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Schneider Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11
State v. Barrientes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Barrientes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” ¶ 11
State of Arizona v. Richard J. Glassel 312 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Richard J. Glassel 312 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2013
¶ 13, (noting that “the State is entitled to a presumption that [the defendant’s] convictions were regularly obtained and are valid”).