mandate rule in Arizona

2006The mandate of the doctrine is to protect one branch against the overreaching of any other branch. 163 Ariz. at 84-85, 786 P.2d at 935-36 .

2006The mandate of the doctrine is to protect one branch against the overreaching of any other branch. 163 Ariz. at 84-85, 786 P.2d at 935-36 .

2026See Kadish, 177 Ariz. at 327-28 . ¶14 The trial court also noted that it was disregarding the mandate because it considered the court of appeals decision to be “clearly 7 STATE v. LaPORTE Opinion of the Court erroneous under Arizona law.” However, purported legal error cannot be invoked by a lower court as an exception to the mandate rule because our supreme court has directed that an appellate court’s mandate addressing a legal issue, “‘right or wrong[,]’ controls the proceedings in the trial court.” Vance v. Vance, 124 Ariz. 1, 3 (1979) (quoting Tucson Gas & Elec.

2026See Kadish, 177 Ariz. at 327-28 . ¶14 The trial court also noted that it was disregarding the mandate because it considered the court of appeals decision to be “clearly 7 STATE v. LaPORTE Opinion of the Court erroneous under Arizona law.” However, purported legal error cannot be invoked by a lower court as an exception to the mandate rule because our supreme court has directed that an appellate court’s mandate addressing a legal issue, “‘right or wrong[,]’ controls the proceedings in the trial court.” Vance v. Vance, 124 Ariz. 1, 3 (1979) (quoting Tucson Gas & Elec.

2026Co. v. Superior Court, 9 Ariz. App. 210, 213 (1969)).

2022See Arizona Biltmore Hotel Villas Condominiums Ass’n, 249 Ariz. at 333 ¶¶ 33–36; see also Harbel Oil Co. v. Superior Ct. of Maricopa Cnty., 86 Ariz. 303, 306 (1959) (resolving whether trial court violated the mandate required analysis of the appellate court’s decision); 5 Am.

2017See State v. Aguilar, 209 Ariz. 40, 48, ¶ 26 (2004) (“Although a comment may clarify a rule’s ambiguous language, a comment cannot otherwise alter the clear text of a rule.”).

2015However, “[w]hen an error has been made in the jury instructions, we consider whether the error was harmless.” State v. Johnson, 205 Ariz. 413, 421, ¶ 27 , 72 P.3d 343, 351 (App. 2003) (citation omitted); see also State v. Sullivan, 205 Ariz. 285, 289, ¶ 19 , 69 P.3d 1006, 1010 (App. 2003) (concluding that a trial court’s deviation from the Portillo instruction3 is subject to harmless error analysis); cf. State v. White, 160 Ariz. 24, 31-32 , 770 P.2d 328, 335-36 (1989) (concluding that the trial court’s omission of the final presumption of innocence instruction was “harmless,” and therefore d

2015However, “[w]hen an error has been made in the jury instructions, we consider whether the error was harmless.” State v. Johnson, 205 Ariz. 413, 421, ¶ 27 , 72 P.3d 343, 351 (App. 2003) (citation omitted); see also State v. Sullivan, 205 Ariz. 285, 289, ¶ 19 , 69 P.3d 1006, 1010 (App. 2003) (concluding that a trial court’s deviation from the Portillo instruction3 is subject to harmless error analysis); cf. State v. White, 160 Ariz. 24, 31-32 , 770 P.2d 328, 335-36 (1989) (concluding that the trial court’s omission of the final presumption of innocence instruction was “harmless,” and therefore d

2015However, “[w]hen an error has been made in the jury instructions, we consider whether the error was harmless.” State v. Johnson, 205 Ariz. 413, 421, ¶ 27 , 72 P.3d 343, 351 (App. 2003) (citation omitted); see also State v. Sullivan, 205 Ariz. 285, 289, ¶ 19 , 69 P.3d 1006, 1010 (App. 2003) (concluding that a trial court’s deviation from the Portillo instruction3 is subject to harmless error analysis); cf. State v. White, 160 Ariz. 24, 31-32 , 770 P.2d 328, 335-36 (1989) (concluding that the trial court’s omission of the final presumption of innocence instruction was “harmless,” and therefore d

2015However, “[w]hen an error has been made in the jury instructions, we consider whether the error was harmless.” State v. Johnson, 205 Ariz. 413, 421, ¶ 27 , 72 P.3d 343, 351 (App. 2003) (citation omitted); see also State v. Sullivan, 205 Ariz. 285, 289, ¶ 19 , 69 P.3d 1006, 1010 (App. 2003) (concluding that a trial court’s deviation from the Portillo instruction3 is subject to harmless error analysis); cf. State v. White, 160 Ariz. 24, 31-32 , 770 P.2d 328, 335-36 (1989) (concluding that the trial court’s omission of the final presumption of innocence instruction was “harmless,” and therefore d

2015However, “[w]hen an error has been made in the jury instructions, we consider whether the error was harmless.” State v. Johnson, 205 Ariz. 413, 421, ¶ 27 , 72 P.3d 343, 351 (App. 2003) (citation omitted); see also State v. Sullivan, 205 Ariz. 285, 289, ¶ 19 , 69 P.3d 1006, 1010 (App. 2003) (concluding that a trial court’s deviation from the Portillo instruction3 is subject to harmless error analysis); cf. State v. White, 160 Ariz. 24, 31-32 , 770 P.2d 328, 335-36 (1989) (concluding that the trial court’s omission of the final presumption of innocence instruction was “harmless,” and therefore d

2015However, “[w]hen an error has been made in the jury instructions, we consider whether the error was harmless.” State v. Johnson, 205 Ariz. 413, 421, ¶ 27 , 72 P.3d 343, 351 (App. 2003) (citation omitted); see also State v. Sullivan, 205 Ariz. 285, 289, ¶ 19 , 69 P.3d 1006, 1010 (App. 2003) (concluding that a trial court’s deviation from the Portillo instruction3 is subject to harmless error analysis); cf. State v. White, 160 Ariz. 24, 31-32 , 770 P.2d 328, 335-36 (1989) (concluding that the trial court’s omission of the final presumption of innocence instruction was “harmless,” and therefore d

2015However, “[w]hen an error has been made in the jury instructions, we consider whether the error was harmless.” State v. Johnson, 205 Ariz. 413, 421, ¶ 27 , 72 P.3d 343, 351 (App. 2003) (citation omitted); see also State v. Sullivan, 205 Ariz. 285, 289, ¶ 19 , 69 P.3d 1006, 1010 (App. 2003) (concluding that a trial court’s deviation from the Portillo instruction3 is subject to harmless error analysis); cf. State v. White, 160 Ariz. 24, 31-32 , 770 P.2d 328, 335-36 (1989) (concluding that the trial court’s omission of the final presumption of innocence instruction was “harmless,” and therefore d

2015However, “[w]hen an error has been made in the jury instructions, we consider whether the error was harmless.” State v. Johnson, 205 Ariz. 413, 421, ¶ 27 , 72 P.3d 343, 351 (App. 2003) (citation omitted); see also State v. Sullivan, 205 Ariz. 285, 289, ¶ 19 , 69 P.3d 1006, 1010 (App. 2003) (concluding that a trial court’s deviation from the Portillo instruction3 is subject to harmless error analysis); cf. State v. White, 160 Ariz. 24, 31-32 , 770 P.2d 328, 335-36 (1989) (concluding that the trial court’s omission of the final presumption of innocence instruction was “harmless,” and therefore d

2015However, “[w]hen an error has been made in the jury instructions, we consider whether the error was harmless.” State v. Johnson, 205 Ariz. 413, 421, ¶ 27 , 72 P.3d 343, 351 (App. 2003) (citation omitted); see also State v. Sullivan, 205 Ariz. 285, 289, ¶ 19 , 69 P.3d 1006, 1010 (App. 2003) (concluding that a trial court’s deviation from the Portillo instruction3 is subject to harmless error analysis); cf. State v. White, 160 Ariz. 24, 31-32 , 770 P.2d 328, 335-36 (1989) (concluding that the trial court’s omission of the final presumption of innocence instruction was “harmless,” and therefore d

2015However, “[w]hen an error has been made in the jury instructions, we consider whether the error was harmless.” State v. Johnson, 205 Ariz. 413, 421, ¶ 27 , 72 P.3d 343, 351 (App. 2003) (citation omitted); see also State v. Sullivan, 205 Ariz. 285, 289, ¶ 19 , 69 P.3d 1006, 1010 (App. 2003) (concluding that a trial court’s deviation from the Portillo instruction3 is subject to harmless error analysis); cf. State v. White, 160 Ariz. 24, 31-32 , 770 P.2d 328, 335-36 (1989) (concluding that the trial court’s omission of the final presumption of innocence instruction was “harmless,” and therefore d

2015However, “[w]hen an error has been made in the jury instructions, we consider whether the error was harmless.” State v. Johnson, 205 Ariz. 413, 421, ¶ 27 , 72 P.3d 343, 351 (App. 2003) (citation omitted); see also State v. Sullivan, 205 Ariz. 285, 289, ¶ 19 , 69 P.3d 1006, 1010 (App. 2003) (concluding that a trial court’s deviation from the Portillo instruction3 is subject to harmless error analysis); cf. State v. White, 160 Ariz. 24, 31-32 , 770 P.2d 328, 335-36 (1989) (concluding that the trial court’s omission of the final presumption of innocence instruction was “harmless,” and therefore d

2015However, “[w]hen an error has been made in the jury instructions, we consider whether the error was harmless.” State v. Johnson, 205 Ariz. 413, 421, ¶ 27 , 72 P.3d 343, 351 (App. 2003) (citation omitted); see also State v. Sullivan, 205 Ariz. 285, 289, ¶ 19 , 69 P.3d 1006, 1010 (App. 2003) (concluding that a trial court’s deviation from the Portillo instruction3 is subject to harmless error analysis); cf. State v. White, 160 Ariz. 24, 31-32 , 770 P.2d 328, 335-36 (1989) (concluding that the trial court’s omission of the final presumption of innocence instruction was “harmless,” and therefore d

1999Miller v. Superior Ct., 189 Ariz. 228, 230 , 941 P.2d 240, 242 (App.1997). ¶ 7 Under the mandate rule, a trial court may not consider on remand matters decided by an appellate court.

1999Miller v. Superior Ct., 189 Ariz. 228, 230 , 941 P.2d 240, 242 (App.1997). ¶ 7 Under the mandate rule, a trial court may not consider on remand matters decided by an appellate court.

1999The trial court, however, may address any issues that the appellate court “did not dispose of either expressly or impliedly.” Pan-Pacific & Low Ball Cable Television Co. v. Pacific Union Co., 987 F.2d 594, 596 (9th Cir.1993).

1977As our Court of Appeals stated in an opinion approved and adopted by this court: “[W]hen a plea bargain has been reached and counsel for both the state and the defendant are present in Court for the purpose of consummating that agreement by obtaining the Court’s acceptance of the bargained-for guilty plea, counsel for both the state and the defendant have an affirmative duty to assist the Court to the end that the appropriate procedural requirements are met.” State v. Mendiola, 23 Ariz.App. 251, 253 , 532 P.2d 193, 195 (1975), aff’d, 112 Ariz. 165 , 540 P.2d 131 (1975).

1977As our Court of Appeals stated in an opinion approved and adopted by this court: “[W]hen a plea bargain has been reached and counsel for both the state and the defendant are present in Court for the purpose of consummating that agreement by obtaining the Court’s acceptance of the bargained-for guilty plea, counsel for both the state and the defendant have an affirmative duty to assist the Court to the end that the appropriate procedural requirements are met.” State v. Mendiola, 23 Ariz.App. 251, 253 , 532 P.2d 193, 195 (1975), aff’d, 112 Ariz. 165 , 540 P.2d 131 (1975).