Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Febles, 115 P.3d 629.

63 citing documents.

State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Absent any evidence that the failure to raise an issue fell below prevailing professional norms and would have changed the outcome of the appeal, the claim is not colorable.” ¶ 19, (internal citation omitted).
State v. Karban Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Karban Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Follansbee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Follansbee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Appellate counsel is not ineffective for selecting some issues and rejecting others.” ¶ 19
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Failure to predict future changes in the law is not ineffective assistance because “[c]lairvoyance is not a required attribute of effective representation.” ¶ 24, (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Gerardo Poblete Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Gerardo Poblete Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
see also Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 416 (2007) (“[A]n old rule applies both on direct and collateral review, but a new rule is generally applicable only to 6 cases that are still on direct review.”).
State of Arizona v. Pablo Rodriguez Celaya 141 P.3d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Pablo Rodriguez Celaya 141 P.3d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Ward 118 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Ward 118 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005