Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2026 14 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Travis Wade Amaralgreen2 sentences2025A PCR claim is subject to summary dismissal if the alleged facts are unlikely to change the verdict, State v. Amaral, 239 Ariz. 217, 220, ¶ 11 (2016), and the court must dismiss the petition when it contains no claim which “presents a material issue of fact or law” that would entitle the defendant to relief, Ariz. R. 2025A PCR claim is subject to summary dismissal if the alleged facts are unlikely to change the verdict, State v. Amaral, 239 Ariz. 217, 220, ¶ 11 (2016), and the court must dismiss the petition when it contains no claim which “presents a material issue of fact or law” that would entitle the defendant to relief, Ariz. R. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Bennettgreen2 sentences2025State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 568-69, ¶ 30 (2006). 2021But a defendant is entitled to a hearing if a non-precluded PCR claim “is colorable.” State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 566, ¶ 17 (2006). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Donaldgreen2 sentences2023See Donald, 198 Ariz. at 413, ¶ 16 . 2020P. 33.16 (c)(2)(B) (“petition . . . for review must contain . . . a statement of issues the trial court decided that the defendant is presenting for appellate review”); State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390 , 403 ¶ 41 (App. 2007) (no review for fundamental error in a post- conviction relief proceeding). 4 STATE v. ESTLING Decision of the Court “[p]roof of ineffectiveness must be a demonstrable reality rather than a matter of speculation”); State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 , 414 ¶ 21 (App. 2000) (to warrant evidentiary hearing, PCR claim “must consist of more than conclusory assertions”). ¶14 Moreover, | 1 | 2 |
Krone v. Hothamgreen2 sentences2026This ensures that a defendant can receive “speedy relief for those claims which are not proper for direct appeals” and, depending on the viability of the Rule 32 claim, “could make consideration of the direct appeal moot and could hasten the start of a new trial or other resolution of the case.” Jones, 182 Ariz. at 434 (quoting Krone v. Hotham, 181 Ariz. 364, 366 (1995)). ¶7 In sum, the superior court has jurisdiction to address a PCR claim of newly discovered evidence during the pendency of an appeal. 2026This ensures that a defendant can receive “speedy relief for those claims which are not proper for direct appeals” and, depending on the viability of the Rule 32 claim, “could make consideration of the direct appeal moot and could hasten the start of a new trial or other resolution of the case.” Jones, 182 Ariz. at 434 (quoting Krone v. Hotham, 181 Ariz. 364, 366 (1995)). ¶7 In sum, the superior court has jurisdiction to address a PCR claim of newly discovered evidence during the pendency of an appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Sterlinggreen1 sentence2025Cf. Jones v. Sterling, 210 Ariz. 308, 315 (2005) (“The denial of expert witness assistance to a criminal defendant can violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Drozdgreen1 sentence2025A state has the flexibility to impose fair conditions on the defendant, State v. Drozd, 116 Ariz. 330, 331 (App. 1977) (citing United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 323-26 (1976)), and the defendant must strictly comply with the rules, Carriger, 143 Ariz. at 146 . ¶22 The help of an expert, investigator, or specialist may be necessary to enable a PCR defendant to assert his or her statutory rights adequately. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. MacCollomgreen1 sentence2025A state has the flexibility to impose fair conditions on the defendant, State v. Drozd, 116 Ariz. 330, 331 (App. 1977) (citing United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 323-26 (1976)), and the defendant must strictly comply with the rules, Carriger, 143 Ariz. at 146 . ¶22 The help of an expert, investigator, or specialist may be necessary to enable a PCR defendant to assert his or her statutory rights adequately. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Britsongreen1 sentence2024A defendant asserting an IAC claim based on trial counsel’s inadequate trial preparation must “show how [he] may have been prejudiced by any purported shortcomings.” State v. Britson, 130 Ariz. 380, 383-84 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rosariogreen1 sentence2024See State v. Rosario, 195 Ariz. 264, 268, ¶ 23 (App. 1999) (recognizing that a successful PCR claim must be based on "a provable reality, not mere speculation"). | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Ronald Bruce Biggergreen2 sentences2024A PCR claim “is subject to summary dismissal ‘[i]f the alleged facts would not have probably changed the verdict or sentence.’” State v. Bigger, 251 Ariz. 402, 407, ¶ 9 (2021) (quoting State v. Amaral, 239 Ariz. 217, 220, ¶ 11 (2016)). 2024A PCR claim “is subject to summary dismissal ‘[i]f the alleged facts would not have probably changed the verdict or sentence.’” State v. Bigger, 251 Ariz. 402, 407, ¶ 9 (2021) (quoting State v. Amaral, 239 Ariz. 217, 220, ¶ 11 (2016)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pobletegreen1 sentence2022State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011). ¶8 Rogers argues the superior court erred by concluding he was barred from presenting his new PCR claim until this court had issued a decision in his earlier proceeding. | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Vaughn Miles Denzgreen2 sentences2022Id. at 444, ¶¶ 9, 13 . 2022Id. at 444, ¶¶ 9, 13 . | 1 | 1 |
Roper v. Simmonsgreen2 sentences2021Id. at 221, ¶ 17 (citing Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569 (2005)) (emphasis added). ¶82 The supreme court then distinguished Amaral’s case from Bilke, where the court ordered a new trial in the case of a defendant who had successfully advanced a PCR claim by presenting newly discovered evidence that he had been diagnosed with PTSD and “he had suffered from the disorder when he committed [his] crimes.” Amaral, 239 Ariz. at 220–21, ¶ 14 (citing Bilke, 162 Ariz. at 51–52). 2021Id. at 221, ¶ 17 (citing Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569 (2005)) (emphasis added). ¶82 The supreme court then distinguished Amaral’s case from Bilke, where the court ordered a new trial in the case of a defendant who had successfully advanced a PCR claim by presenting newly discovered evidence that he had been diagnosed with PTSD and “he had suffered from the disorder when he committed [his] crimes.” Amaral, 239 Ariz. at 220–21, ¶ 14 (citing Bilke, 162 Ariz. at 51–52). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Boldreygreen1 sentence2021A claim is colorable when “if the allegations are true, [they] might have changed the outcome.” State v. Runningeagle, 176 Ariz. 59, 63 (1993); State v. Boldrey, 176 Ariz. 378, 380 (App. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fritzgreen2 sentences2021State v. Fritz, 157 Ariz. 139, 141 (App. 1988). 4 The PCR court described the 2010 diagnosis as a “2015 diagnosis” based on 2015 “medical wisdom.” 5 By all accounts, the PCR court’s order represented a first. 2021State v. Fritz, 157 Ariz. 139, 141 (App. 1988). 4 The PCR court described the 2010 diagnosis as a “2015 diagnosis” based on 2015 “medical wisdom.” 5 By all accounts, the PCR court’s order represented a first. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Runningeaglegreen1 sentence2021A claim is colorable when “if the allegations are true, [they] might have changed the outcome.” State v. Runningeagle, 176 Ariz. 59, 63 (1993); State v. Boldrey, 176 Ariz. 378, 380 (App. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrezgreen1 sentence2020P. 33.11(a); see also Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. at 579, ¶ 31 (“The purpose of an evidentiary hearing in the Rule 32 context is to allow the court to receive evidence, make factual determinations, and resolve material issues of fact.” (citations omitted)). ¶8 Brock fails to establish that the superior court’s dismissal of her PCR claim constitutes an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2026This ensures that a defendant can receive “speedy relief for those claims which are not proper for direct appeals” and, depending on the viability of the Rule 32 claim, “could make consideration of the direct appeal moot and could hasten the start of a new trial or other resolution of the case.” Jones, 182 Ariz. at 434 (quoting Krone v. Hotham, 181 Ariz. 364, 366 (1995)). ¶7 In sum, the superior court has jurisdiction to address a PCR claim of newly discovered evidence during the pendency of an appeal. 2026This ensures that a defendant can receive “speedy relief for those claims which are not proper for direct appeals” and, depending on the viability of the Rule 32 claim, “could make consideration of the direct appeal moot and could hasten the start of a new trial or other resolution of the case.” Jones, 182 Ariz. at 434 (quoting Krone v. Hotham, 181 Ariz. 364, 366 (1995)). ¶7 In sum, the superior court has jurisdiction to address a PCR claim of newly discovered evidence during the pendency of an appeal. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Carriger
green
1 sentence2025A state has the flexibility to impose fair conditions on the defendant, State v. Drozd, 116 Ariz. 330, 331 (App. 1977) (citing United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 323-26 (1976)), and the defendant must strictly comply with the rules, Carriger, 143 Ariz. at 146 . ¶22 The help of an expert, investigator, or specialist may be necessary to enable a PCR defendant to assert his or her statutory rights adequately. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. King
green
2 sentences2025Both Peterson and his counsel testified that counsel repeatedly told Peterson this was “not a case that [he] could win at trial.” And “[w]e defer to the PCR court’s credibility evaluations of witnesses who testified at the PCR hearing.” State v. King, 250 Ariz. 433 , 439 ¶ 21 (App. 2021). 2025Both Peterson and his counsel testified that counsel repeatedly told Peterson this was “not a case that [he] could win at trial.” And “[w]e defer to the PCR court’s credibility evaluations of witnesses who testified at the PCR hearing.” State v. King, 250 Ariz. 433 , 439 ¶ 21 (App. 2021). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Anders v. California
green
1 sentence2022After PCR counsel informed the court that she could find no colorable PCR claim to pursue, Campos filed a PCR petition in propria persona raising the following claims: (1) in both cases, the court unlawfully sentenced him to greater-than-presumptive terms because, he maintained, the sentences were not justified by proper aggravators; (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel purportedly failed to advise him that at sentencing, the court could consider as aggravators his prior felony convictions and probationer status despite the State’s agreement not to enhance hi | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Bilke
green
2 sentences2021Id. at 221, ¶ 17 (citing Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569 (2005)) (emphasis added). ¶82 The supreme court then distinguished Amaral’s case from Bilke, where the court ordered a new trial in the case of a defendant who had successfully advanced a PCR claim by presenting newly discovered evidence that he had been diagnosed with PTSD and “he had suffered from the disorder when he committed [his] crimes.” Amaral, 239 Ariz. at 220–21, ¶ 14 (citing Bilke, 162 Ariz. at 51–52). 2021Id. at 221, ¶ 17 (citing Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569 (2005)) (emphasis added). ¶82 The supreme court then distinguished Amaral’s case from Bilke, where the court ordered a new trial in the case of a defendant who had successfully advanced a PCR claim by presenting newly discovered evidence that he had been diagnosed with PTSD and “he had suffered from the disorder when he committed [his] crimes.” Amaral, 239 Ariz. at 220–21, ¶ 14 (citing Bilke, 162 Ariz. at 51–52). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Swoopes
green
1 sentence2020P. 33.16 (c)(2)(B) (“petition . . . for review must contain . . . a statement of issues the trial court decided that the defendant is presenting for appellate review”); State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390 , 403 ¶ 41 (App. 2007) (no review for fundamental error in a post- conviction relief proceeding). 4 STATE v. ESTLING Decision of the Court “[p]roof of ineffectiveness must be a demonstrable reality rather than a matter of speculation”); State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 , 414 ¶ 21 (App. 2000) (to warrant evidentiary hearing, PCR claim “must consist of more than conclusory assertions”). ¶14 Moreover, | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Pandeli
green
2 sentences2017Pandeli IV, 215 Ariz. at 528 -29 ¶¶ 52-53, 161 P.3d at 571-72 . ¶ 41 At the PCR hearing, Shriver testified that he believed, under the existing ease law, that the facts and evidence of Humphreys’ murder would be admitted as relevant to leniency and his experts would be questioned about it. 2017Pandeli IV, 215 Ariz. at 528 -29 ¶¶ 52-53, 161 P.3d at 571-72 . ¶ 41 At the PCR hearing, Shriver testified that he believed, under the existing ease law, that the facts and evidence of Humphreys’ murder would be admitted as relevant to leniency and his experts would be questioned about it. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.