Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Espinoza v. Martin, 894 P.2d 688.

29 citing documents.

State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
See, (superior court must determine voluntariness and intelligence of plea before accepting or rejecting it); (“[T]he trial court must satisfy itself that there is a 4 STATE v. BARNES
State of Arizona v. Dustin Gill 391 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Dustin Gill 391 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2017
410(a)(1)–(2) (noting discussions about “a guilty plea” or “no contest plea”); (defining plea negotiations on “any aspect of the disposition of the case” pursuant to Arizona Rule of Evidence 17.4(a) to mean that “‘the State and the defendant may bargain both as to the plea of guilty and as to the sentence to be imposed.’’’) (quoting State v. Superior Court, 125 Ari
State v. Vidovic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Vidovic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State ex rel. Polk v. Hancock 340 P.3d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State ex rel. Polk v. Hancock 340 P.3d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 16 Plea agreements are “an essential part of the criminal process and can enhance judicial economy, protect the resources of the State, and serve the ends of justice for the defendant, the State and the victim.” , (citation omitted).
Gerardo Lopez v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Criticized Gerardo Lopez v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
9 ¶15 But the respondent judge was not required to consider any presentence report—and does not appear to have done so in this case—before deciding whether the plea agreement was acceptable, as long as he gave the agreement “‘individualized consideration.’” 3 -30, -38 (App. 1995)
State of Arizona v. Sergio Alonzo Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Sergio Alonzo Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Rachel Marie Vallejo 158 P.3d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona Ex Rel R Romley v. Hon Ballinger 97 P.3d 101 Ariz. 2004
State of Arizona Ex Rel R Romley v. Hon Ballinger 97 P.3d 101 Ariz. 2004
State v. Darelli 72 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Darelli 72 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
However, plea agreements are “an essential part of the criminal process and can enhance judicial economy, protect the resources of the State, and serve the ends of justice for the defendant, the State and the victim.” , (quoting State v. Superior Court (Williams), , (rejected on other grounds, , )).
State v. Donald 10 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Donald 10 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In re Jonah T. 994 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In re Jonah T. 994 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Galati Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 985 P.2d 494 Ariz. 1999
State v. Galati Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 985 P.2d 494 Ariz. 1999
§ 12-120.24; , (grant of special action relief proper when issue is of statewide importance).
Florez v. Sargeant 917 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1996
Zarabia v. Bradshaw 912 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1996
Zarabia v. Bradshaw 912 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1996
Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc. 907 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1995
State v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR NAVAJO CO. 903 P.2d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR NAVAJO CO. 903 P.2d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995