Arizona Supreme Court· 1/16/1996

State v. Smith

Citations

910 P.2d 1
184 Ariz. 456
209 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 34
1996 Ariz. LEXIS 3

How courts have described this case

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

holding that the repeal of A.R.S. § 13-4035 is procedural and not substantive and therefore fully retroactive
holding that the repeal of A.R.S. § 13-4035 is procedural and not substantive and therefore fully retroactive
holding that the repeal of A.R.S. § 13-4035 is procedural and not substantive and therefore fully retroactive
holding that the repeal of A.R.S. § 13-4035 is procedural and not substantive and therefore fully retroactive
holding that the repeal of A.R.S. § 13-4035 is procedural and not substantive and therefore fully retroactive
holding that because a Rule 32 petition is analogous to a direct appeal, an indigent defendant is entitled to appointed counsel for an initial post-conviction relief proceeding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Feldman, Martone, Moeller, Corcoran, Zlaket

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

42 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.