State v. Manning

How courts have described this case

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

• appeals court has no jurisdiction to address merits of petition where no cognizable ground under Rule 32 is asserted
• “A petitioner must comply strictly with Rule 32 by asserting substantive grounds which bring him within the provisions of the rule in order to be entitled to any relief.”
• “A petitioner must comply strictly with rule 32 by asserting substantive grounds which bring him within the provisions of the rule in order to be entitled to any relief.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• John David Roettgen v. Dale Copeland, Warden
  Ninth Circuit· 1994-08-16· cited 71×
• State v. Herrera
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1995-10-17· cited 61×
• State v. Davis
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1985-12-24· cited 6×
• State v. Robbins
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1991-01-10· cited 4×

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• McKellar v. Arizona State Department of Corrections
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1977-07-14· cited 19×
• State v. Brown
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1975-06-13· cited 18×
• Thomas v. Ariz. State Bd. of Pardons and Paroles
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1977-04-15· cited 15×
• State v. Salazar
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1979-03-06· cited 10×
• State v. Zebrowski
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1975-11-25· cited 7×
• Carrion v. State
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1976-07-20· cited 4×
• In re Nicholson
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1977-03-17· cited 1×