Segura v. Cunanan
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
IRVINE, Presiding Judge.
¶ 1 Francisco Medrano Tovar and Jose Segura separately petition this court to accept jurisdiction of their special actions and to grant the relief requested. Each claims that he was deprived of his liberty without due process because he was held in custody without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing at which he could fully litigate whether the Arizona Constitution’s no-bail provision applies to him. We accepted jurisdiction and granted substantial relief in earlier orders. We hold in this Opinion that if the State alleges that a defendant is not entitled to bail…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Demore v. KimSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Fragoso v. FellCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
- State v. GomezArizona Supreme Court · 2006
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Angel Lopez-Valenzuela v. County of MaricopaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Angel Lopez-Valenzuela v. County of MaricopaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- State v. Bail Bonds USACourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
- Simpson v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2016
- Angel Lopez-Valenzuela v. County of MaricopaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.