State v. Hunter

8 Citing cases

  1. State v. Greer

    No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0080 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    ¶18 Greer argues his right to a speedy trial was violated because he was not brought to trial within the time limits set forth in Rule 8.2(a)(3)(C), Ariz. R. Crim. P., and the Sixth Amendment. We review a trial court's Rule 8 rulings and factual determinations for an abuse of discretion, see State v. Parker, 231 Ariz. 391, ¶ 8 (2013); State v. Hunter, 227 Ariz. 542, ¶ 4 (App. 2011), and its rulings in regard to the right to a speedy trial originating from the Sixth Amendment de novo, Parker, 231 Ariz. 391, ¶ 8. We will first consider the issue under Rule 8, as the right to a speedy trial under the rule "is more strict than that provided by the United States Constitution."

  2. State v. Nunez

    No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0337 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2018)

    "We review a trial court's Rule 8 rulings for abuse of discretion." State v. Hunter, 227 Ariz. 542, ¶ 4 (App. 2011). "A trial court's ruling regarding Rule 8 will be upheld unless a defendant shows both an abuse of discretion and prejudice."

  3. State v. Simpson

    No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0155 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2017)

    ¶2 "We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdicts." State v. Hunter, 227 Ariz. 542, ¶ 2, 260 P.3d 1107, 1108 (App. 2011). In July 2014, Simpson met then twelve-year-old T.N. and ten-year-old J.B. after introducing himself to their mother, M.C., in a grocery store parking lot in Nogales.

  4. State v. Sales

    No. 1 CA-CR 15-0788 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2016)

    We review a trial court's Rule 8 ruling for an abuse of discretion. State v. Hunter, 227 Ariz. 542, 543 ¶ 4, 260 P.3d 1107, 1108 (App. 2011). But we review issues not raised in the trial court only for fundamental error.

  5. State v. Burke

    No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0002 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2014)

    ¶7 We will not reverse a conviction for a technical violation of Rule 8 where the "defendant has not established that the . . . error . . . prejudiced his defense in any way or deprived him of a fair trial." State v. Vasko, 193 Ariz. 142, ¶ 31, 971 P.2d 189, 196 (App. 1998); see also State v. Hunter, 227 Ariz. 542, ¶ 10, 260 P.3d 1107, 1109 (App. 2011). To show prejudice, a defendant must establish that "his defense has been harmed by the delay," the delay caused prolonged confinement, the delay's length was unreasonable, Vasko, 193 Ariz. 142, ¶ 22, 971 P.2d at 194, or that the delay had some "impact . . . on his prospects for parole and meaningful rehabilitation."

  6. State v. Arnold

    No. 1 CA-CR 13-0551 (Ariz. Ct. App. Sep. 9, 2014)

    We review a trial court's denial of a Rule 8 motion for abuse of discretion. State v. Hunter, 227 Ariz. 542, 543, ¶ 4, 260 P.3d 1107, 1108 (App. 2011). ¶18 We find no error in the trial court's denial of Arnold's Rule 8 motion.

  7. State v. McDonald

    No. 1 CA-CR 12-0761 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2014)

    We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdict and view all reasonable inferences against McDonald. State v. Hunter, 227 Ariz. 542, 543, ¶ 2, 260 P.3d 1107, 1108 (App. 2011). ¶2 In October 2011, McDonald was employed by Peddler's Son Produce (Peddler's) as a produce puller.

  8. State v. Barreras

    No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0204 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jul. 1, 2021)

    ¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolve reasonable inferences against Barreras. See State v. Hunter, 227 Ariz. 542, ¶ 2 (App. 2011). In March of 2014, M.W. and R.M. were cleaning a rental property owned by M.W. M.W. discovered a toy box under a pile of trash on the back patio.