Cited by

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

117 citing documents.

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”).