Arizona Supreme Court· 2/26/2003

State v. Towery

Citations

64 P.3d 828
204 Ariz. 386
394 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 14
2003 Ariz. LEXIS 16

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that Ring is not a watershed rule that implicates the fundamental fairness of the trial and that Ring “does not meet either of the exceptions” in Teague
concluding under the Linkletter test that \the [Arizona] justice system's good faith reliance on Walton v. Arizona weighs against retroactivity\
noting that \[c]ertainly the Arizona justice system acted in good faith in applying the holding of Walton until the Court overruled its decade-old decision\
noting that for purposes of a Rule 32 PCR petition, the court must determine whether the new law “applies retroactively to the [defendant’s] sentences
concluding that Ring does not apply retroactively
Ring “imposes a new bur- den on the state. Thus we conclude that Ring [satisfes Rule 32.1(g)]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McGregor, Feldman, Jones, Berch, Ryan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

39 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.