6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2023 1 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. Gulbrandsongreen1 sentence2023Additionally, "a defendant must make his desire to testify known at trial and cannot allege this desire as an afterthought," and a trial court need not conduct "a sua sponte inquiry . . . regarding a defendant's right to testify." State v. Gulbrandson, 184 Ariz. 46, 65 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fogelgreen2 sentences2013Cf. State v. Pena, 209 Ariz. 503, ¶ 15 , 104 P.3d 873, 877 (App.2005) (error harmless if “absent the error, the court would have reached the same result”). ¶ 7 Banda next argues that, because the period prescribed by a statute of limitations is jurisdictional in Arizona, he is permitted to raise it pursuant to Rule 32.1(b), which permits relief if “[t]he court was without jurisdiction to render judgment or to impose sentence.” He contends the trial court improperly “disagree[d]” with our decision in Taylor v. Cruikshank, 214 Ariz. 40 , 148 P.3d 84 (App.2006), by determining “that a statute of 2013Cf. State v. Pena, 209 Ariz. 503, ¶ 15 , 104 P.3d 873, 877 (App.2005) (error harmless if “absent the error, the court would have reached the same result”). ¶ 7 Banda next argues that, because the period prescribed by a statute of limitations is jurisdictional in Arizona, he is permitted to raise it pursuant to Rule 32.1(b), which permits relief if “[t]he court was without jurisdiction to render judgment or to impose sentence.” He contends the trial court improperly “disagree[d]” with our decision in Taylor v. Cruikshank, 214 Ariz. 40 , 148 P.3d 84 (App.2006), by determining “that a statute of | 1 | 1 |
State v. Penagreen2 sentences2013Cf. State v. Pena, 209 Ariz. 503, ¶ 15 , 104 P.3d 873, 877 (App.2005) (error harmless if “absent the error, the court would have reached the same result”). ¶ 7 Banda next argues that, because the period prescribed by a statute of limitations is jurisdictional in Arizona, he is permitted to raise it pursuant to Rule 32.1(b), which permits relief if “[t]he court was without jurisdiction to render judgment or to impose sentence.” He contends the trial court improperly “disagree[d]” with our decision in Taylor v. Cruikshank, 214 Ariz. 40 , 148 P.3d 84 (App.2006), by determining “that a statute of 2013Cf. State v. Pena, 209 Ariz. 503, ¶ 15 , 104 P.3d 873, 877 (App.2005) (error harmless if “absent the error, the court would have reached the same result”). ¶ 7 Banda next argues that, because the period prescribed by a statute of limitations is jurisdictional in Arizona, he is permitted to raise it pursuant to Rule 32.1(b), which permits relief if “[t]he court was without jurisdiction to render judgment or to impose sentence.” He contends the trial court improperly “disagree[d]” with our decision in Taylor v. Cruikshank, 214 Ariz. 40 , 148 P.3d 84 (App.2006), by determining “that a statute of | 1 | 1 |
Rueda v. Galvezgreen2 sentences1980See Rueda v. Galvez, 94 Ariz. 131 , 382 P.2d 239 (1963). 1980See Rueda v. Galvez, 94 Ariz. 131 , 382 P.2d 239 (1963). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Beck v. Alabama
green
2 sentences1988Although in capital cases, a defendant has a constitutional right pursuant to the due process clause to a sua sponte instruction on all lesser-included counts of first degree murder, Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 , 100 S.Ct. 2382 , 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980), this holding has not been extended to noncapital offenses. 1988Although in capital cases, a defendant has a constitutional right pursuant to the due process clause to a sua sponte instruction on all lesser-included counts of first degree murder, Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 , 100 S.Ct. 2382 , 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980), this holding has not been extended to noncapital offenses. | 2 | 1985–1988 |
Taylor v. Cruikshank
green
2 sentences2013Cf. State v. Pena, 209 Ariz. 503, ¶ 15 , 104 P.3d 873, 877 (App.2005) (error harmless if “absent the error, the court would have reached the same result”). ¶ 7 Banda next argues that, because the period prescribed by a statute of limitations is jurisdictional in Arizona, he is permitted to raise it pursuant to Rule 32.1(b), which permits relief if “[t]he court was without jurisdiction to render judgment or to impose sentence.” He contends the trial court improperly “disagree[d]” with our decision in Taylor v. Cruikshank, 214 Ariz. 40 , 148 P.3d 84 (App.2006), by determining “that a statute of 2013Cf. State v. Pena, 209 Ariz. 503, ¶ 15 , 104 P.3d 873, 877 (App.2005) (error harmless if “absent the error, the court would have reached the same result”). ¶ 7 Banda next argues that, because the period prescribed by a statute of limitations is jurisdictional in Arizona, he is permitted to raise it pursuant to Rule 32.1(b), which permits relief if “[t]he court was without jurisdiction to render judgment or to impose sentence.” He contends the trial court improperly “disagree[d]” with our decision in Taylor v. Cruikshank, 214 Ariz. 40 , 148 P.3d 84 (App.2006), by determining “that a statute of | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Allie
green
1 sentence1995In Allie , the court held that a sua sponte inquiry by the trial court regarding a defendant’s right to testify is neither necessary nor appropriate. 147 Ariz. at 328, 710 P.2d at 438 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Haco Drilling Company v. Hammer
green
1 sentence1995Although we think that in an appropriate case it may be prudent for a trial court to have a defendant make an on-the-record waiver of the right to testify, see Martin, 102 Ariz. at 145 , 426 P.2d at 642 , it is not generally required under Arizona law. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Martin
green
1 sentence1995Although we think that in an appropriate case it may be prudent for a trial court to have a defendant make an on-the-record waiver of the right to testify, see Martin, 102 Ariz. at 145 , 426 P.2d at 642 , it is not generally required under Arizona law. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.