Court of Appeals of Arizona· 4/6/2000

State v. Saenz

Citations

197 Ariz. 487
4 P.3d 1030
319 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 3
2000 Ariz. App. LEXIS 52

How courts have described this case

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

discussing the requirement that a defendant must have exercised due diligence for “newly discovered evidence” to result in a new trial
moving to vacate a judgment before the court has entered judgment and sentence, is premature and cannot proceed
evidence not newly discovered unless \it could not have been discovered and produced at trial through reasonable diligence\
“Nor could [defendant] have proceeded under Rule 24.2 because a judgment of conviction and sentence had not yet been entered.”
“[U]nder Rule 32.1(e), a defendant must establish that the evidence . . . could not have been discovered and produced at trial through reasonable diligence . . . .”
“Nor could [defendant] have proceeded under Rule 24.2 because a judgment of conviction and sentence had not yet been entered. Like the petition for post-conviction relief, a motion to vacate the judgment would also have been premature.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brammer, Espinosa, Howard

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

19 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.