Skip to main content

State v. Adler

Citations

  • 942 P.2d 439
  • 189 Ariz. 280
  • 247 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 13
  • 1997 Ariz. LEXIS 81

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • observing that “sentencing with counsel present and the defendant present by telephone with consent is entirely different” than sentencing in absentia and is permissible
  • explaining that sentencing with the defendant present by telephone with consent would have alleviated most of the concerns Rule 26.9 addresses
  • acknowledging rule that defendant must be present at sentencing but observing “sentencing with counsel present and the defendant present by telephone with consent is entirely different” than sentencing in absentia and is permissible procedure
  • acknowledging rule that defendant must be present at sentencing but observing “sentencing with counsel present and the defendant present by telephone with consent is entirely different” than sentencing in absentia and is permissible procedure

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Moeller, Martone, Zlaket, Jones, Feldman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.