DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wilson v. Ellis, 859 P.2d 744.

37 citing documents.

  • State v. Baltazar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Baltazar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    P. 33.8(b) (pleading defendants must upon request receive any transcripts that courts deem necessary to resolve PCR claims); (pleading defendants are entitled to plea- proceeding transcripts); (pleading defendants are entitled to sentencing-hearing transcripts).
  • State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 456 P.3d 453 Ariz. 2020
  • State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 456 P.3d 453 Ariz. 2020
    See Birmingham, 96 Ariz. at 110; –24 (1993) (stating that the right to appeal triggers appellate review and “some form of appellate relief”).
  • State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Reed 435 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Reed 435 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    830 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985) (counsel on appeal); Wilson v. Ellis , , 124, , 747 (1993) (transcripts in postconviction relief proceedings).
  • State v. Leyva 389 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • State v. Leyva 389 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
    (Martone, J., dissenting).
  • 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
    3 STATE V. GLASSEL Opinion of the Court 458, (differentiating between direct appeals and Rule 32 proceedings); n.2, n.2 (1995) (referring to Rule 32 proceedings as “a distinct form of appellate review”); (discussing “appellate review by PCR in lieu of direct appeal”).
  • Stout v. Taylor 311 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Stout v. Taylor 311 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    (Rule 32.4(d) entitles indigent petitioner to a transcript of sentencing proceedings); , (citing Wilson to hold that indigent defendants are entitled to a transcript of plea proceedings).
  • State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. Soto 224 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    (“Clearly, art. [II], § 24 guarantees some form of appellate relief.”).
  • State of Arizona v. Alvaro Felix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • State of Arizona v. Alvaro Felix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    .”); (“Clearly, art. 2, § 24 guarantees some form of appellate relief.”); see also A.R.S.
  • State v. Ward 118 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • State v. Ward 118 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
    P. 17.1(e)[]; , (“It was precisely because of art. 2, § 24 that this court expressly left open the avenue of appellate review by PCR in lieu of direct appeal when it amended the rules with respect to cases involving [guilty pleas].”).
  • State v. Delgarito 938 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Delgarito 938 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    Ariz. Const, art. 2, § 24
  • State v. Jimenez 935 P.2d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Jimenez 935 P.2d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Baca 926 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Baca 926 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Lammie v. Barker 915 P.2d 662 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Smith 910 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Smith 910 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1996
    Ariz. Const, art. II, § 24
  • State v. Smith 904 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Overruled State v. Smith 904 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    859 P.2d at 744 (1993), where the supreme court was “cognizant of the higher command of art. 2, § 24 of the Arizona Constitution.” 4 Id.
  • Montgomery v. Sheldon 893 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1995
  • Montgomery v. Sheldon 893 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1995
    1 Ariz. Const, art. 2, § 24
  • Campbell v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Campbell v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    While we agree with the dissent's contention that a Rule 32 petitioner has a right to access to the court, , (Oct.
  • State v. Whipple 866 P.2d 1358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Whipple 866 P.2d 1358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993