review for fundamental error in Arizona

10 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2017 0 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.

Followed or applied (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Moreno-Medranogreen arizctapp · 2008 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009See State v. Moreno-Medrano, 218 Ariz. 349, 117 , 185 P.3d 135, 138 (App.2008). 2 . 2009See State v. Moreno-Medrano, 218 Ariz. 349, 117 , 185 P.3d 135, 138 (App.2008). 2 .	2	2
State v. Smithgreen ariz · 1996 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 460 (1996). ¶6 In dismissing the petition, the trial court issued a ruling that clearly identified, fully addressed, and correctly resolved the claims Ojeda raised.	1	1
State v. Floresgreen arizctapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017See, e.g., State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).	1	1
State v. Hendersongreen arizctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005The court correctly noted the distinction between the two types of trial error, stating that “trial error to which an objection is made at trial is subject to a harmless error analysis” while “trial error to which no objection is made at trial is subject to a review for fundamental error.” Id. at 304 ¶ 13, 100 P.3d at 915 . 2005The court correctly noted the distinction between the two types of trial error, stating that “trial error to which an objection is made at trial is subject to a harmless error analysis” while “trial error to which no objection is made at trial is subject to a review for fundamental error.” Id. at 304 ¶ 13, 100 P.3d at 915 .	1	1
State v. Biblegreen ariz · 1993 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004"Error is harmless only if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it `did not contribute to or affect the verdict.' Put another way, the proper inquiry is `whether the guilty verdict actually rendered ... was surely unattributable to the error.'" State v. Green, 200 Ariz. 496, 501, ¶ 21 , 29 P.3d 271, 276 (2001) (quoting State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1191 (1993)). 2004"Error is harmless only if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it `did not contribute to or affect the verdict.' Put another way, the proper inquiry is `whether the guilty verdict actually rendered ... was surely unattributable to the error.'" State v. Green, 200 Ariz. 496, 501, ¶ 21 , 29 P.3d 271, 276 (2001) (quoting State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1191 (1993)).	1	1
State v. Greengreen ariz · 2001 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004"Error is harmless only if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it `did not contribute to or affect the verdict.' Put another way, the proper inquiry is `whether the guilty verdict actually rendered ... was surely unattributable to the error.'" State v. Green, 200 Ariz. 496, 501, ¶ 21 , 29 P.3d 271, 276 (2001) (quoting State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1191 (1993)). 2004"Error is harmless only if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it `did not contribute to or affect the verdict.' Put another way, the proper inquiry is `whether the guilty verdict actually rendered ... was surely unattributable to the error.'" State v. Green, 200 Ariz. 496, 501, ¶ 21 , 29 P.3d 271, 276 (2001) (quoting State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1191 (1993)).	1	1
State v. Thomasgreen ariz · 1981 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995See State v. Thomas, 130 Ariz. 432, 435-36 , 636 P.2d 1214, 1217-18 (1981). 569 On July 3, 1991, defendant was arrested for trespassing. 1995See State v. Thomas, 130 Ariz. 432, 435-36 , 636 P.2d 1214, 1217-18 (1981). 569 On July 3, 1991, defendant was arrested for trespassing.	1	1
Anders v. Californiagreen scotus · 1967 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991See State v. McFord, 125 Ariz. 377 , 609 P.2d 1077 (App.1980) (where counsel filed motion for rehearing in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 , 451 P.2d 878 (1969), petition for review dismissed). 1991See State v. McFord, 125 Ariz. 377 , 609 P.2d 1077 (App.1980) (where counsel filed motion for rehearing in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 , 451 P.2d 878 (1969), petition for review dismissed).	1	1
State v. McFordgreen arizctapp · 1980 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991See State v. McFord, 125 Ariz. 377 , 609 P.2d 1077 (App.1980) (where counsel filed motion for rehearing in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 , 451 P.2d 878 (1969), petition for review dismissed). 1991See State v. McFord, 125 Ariz. 377 , 609 P.2d 1077 (App.1980) (where counsel filed motion for rehearing in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 , 451 P.2d 878 (1969), petition for review dismissed).	1	1
State v. Leongreen ariz · 1969 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991See State v. McFord, 125 Ariz. 377 , 609 P.2d 1077 (App.1980) (where counsel filed motion for rehearing in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 , 451 P.2d 878 (1969), petition for review dismissed). 1991See State v. McFord, 125 Ariz. 377 , 609 P.2d 1077 (App.1980) (where counsel filed motion for rehearing in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 , 451 P.2d 878 (1969), petition for review dismissed).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Martinez green ariz · 2005 2 sentences 2005Martinez, 210 Ariz. 578, n.2 , 115 P.3d at 620 n.2. 2005Martinez, 210 Ariz. 578, n. 2 , 115 P.3d at 620 n. 2.	2	2005–2005
State v. Ring green ariz · 2003 2 sentences 2005The court then applied the harmless error standard from State v. Ring, 204 Ariz. 534 , 65 P.3d 915 (2003) (Ring III), holding that “judicial fact-finding ... may constitute harmless error if we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that no reasonable jury would fail to find the aggravating circumstance.” Henderson, 209 Ariz. at 311 ¶ 35, 100 P.3d at 922 (citations omitted). ¶ 9 The State contends that the court erroneously applied the harmless error standard to Henderson’s Blakely claim, because Henderson had not preserved his objection at trial. 2005The court then applied the harmless error standard from State v. Ring, 204 Ariz. 534 , 65 P.3d 915 (2003) (Ring III), holding that “judicial fact-finding ... may constitute harmless error if we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that no reasonable jury would fail to find the aggravating circumstance.” Henderson, 209 Ariz. at 311 ¶ 35, 100 P.3d at 922 (citations omitted). ¶ 9 The State contends that the court erroneously applied the harmless error standard to Henderson’s Blakely claim, because Henderson had not preserved his objection at trial.	1	2005–2005

Where else courts name it

AZ 10 (1991–2017) NM 3 (2014–2016)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check