In State v. Carter, 216 Ariz. 286, 287, P 2, 165 P.3d 687, 688 (App. 2007), the Court addressed how a defendant may show prejudice because "Morales does not specify whether proof of prejudice must be present in the record on appeal, or whether the matter may be remanded to the superior court for an evidentiary hearing to permit the defendant to demonstrate prejudice." Carter, 216 Ariz. at 290, P 20, 165 P.3d at 691. The Court concluded that remand for a determination of prejudice is the appropriate remedy when the defendant's prior convictions are not entered into evidence because "evidence of the necessary prejudice, i.e., that the defendant would not have stipulated to the prior conviction had the proper colloquy taken place, by nature is not usually to be found in the record on appeal." Id. at 291, P 23, 165 P.3d at 692. State v. Carter, addressed whether proof of prejudice must be in the record on appeal, or whether the matter may be remanded for an evidentiary hearing to permit the defendant to demonstrate prejudice. 216 Ariz. at 290, P 20, 165 P.3d at 691. Carter concluded that remand for a determination of prejudice was the appropriate remedy when the defendant's prior convictions are not entered into evidence. 216 Ariz. at 291, P 23, 165 P.3d at 692. This is because "evidence of the necessary prejudice, i.e., that the defendant would not have stipulated to the prior conviction had the proper colloquy taken place, by nature is not usually to be found in the record on appeal." Id. Carter does not place the burden on the State to disprove error; rather, it gives the defendant an opportunity to prove prejudice.