Cited by

¶ 20 (App. 2005) (finding that winnowing out weaker arguments on appeal to focus on other arguments more likely to prevail “is an acceptable exercise of professional judgment”); ¶ 21 (App. 2020) (“Appellate counsel did not render ineffective assistance by selecting more viable issues to press on appeal.”).

¶ 19 (2012); ¶ 16 (App. 2020).

¶11 “We review the superior court’s denial of [a PCR] for an abuse of discretion,” ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but review its interpretation of rules de novo, ¶ 12 (App. 2019).

¶10 We review the superior court’s denial of PCR for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but we interpret procedural rules de novo, –15 ¶ 12 (App. 2019).

¶ 19 (2012); ¶ 16 (App. 2020).

¶8 “We review the superior court’s denial of post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, but review the interpretation of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure de novo[.]” ¶ 8 (App. 2020) (citations omitted).

¶7 We review the superior court’s denial of PCR for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but review the interpretation of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure de novo, State v. 3 –15, ¶ 12 (App. 2019).

¶ 19 (2012); ¶ 16 (App. 2020).

¶ 19 (2012); ¶ 16 (App. 2020).

¶ 115 (2009); ¶ 11 (App. 2020); see also Ariz. R. Crim.

“Judicial rulings alone do not support a finding of bias or partiality without a showing of an extrajudicial source of bias or deep- seated favoritism.” ¶ 22 (App. 2020).

“[W]e presume that a judicial officer is impartial, and the party challenging the officer’s impartiality must prove bias or prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence.” ¶ 22 (App. 2020) (citation 5 JOHNSON v. STATE, et al. Decision of the Court modified) ( ¶ 14 (2013)).

Evans, 252 Ariz. at 595, ¶ 10; ¶ 20 (App. 2020).

-41, ¶¶ 17-18 (App. 2020).

DISCUSSION ¶5 We review the superior court’s denial of a petition for PCR for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but review the interpretation of the criminal rules and the court’s legal 2 STATE v. JUMPER Decision of the Court conclusions de novo, ¶ 12 (App. 2019); State v.

“Even a single partial juror violates a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.” ¶ 10 (App. 2020) (quotation omitted).

DISCUSSION ¶7 We review the superior court’s denial of a petition for PCR for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but review the interpretation of the Criminal Rules de novo, ¶ 12 (App. 2019).

DISCUSSION ¶7 We review the superior court’s denial of a PCR petition for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but review the interpretation of the Criminal Rules de novo, ¶ 12 (App. 2019).

“Judicial rulings alone do not support a finding of bias or partiality without a showing of an extrajudicial source of bias or deep-seated favoritism.” ¶ 22 (App. 2020); ¶ 14 (App. 2014) (“Judicial bias or prejudice ordinarily must arise from an extrajudicial source and not from what the judge has done in his participation in the case.”) (citations omitted).

DISCUSSION ¶9 We review the superior court’s denial of PCR for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but review the interpretation of the Criminal Rules de novo, –15, ¶ 12 (App. 2019).

DISCUSSION ¶11 We review the superior court’s denial of PCR for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but review the interpretation of the Criminal Rules de novo, –15, ¶ 12 (App. 2019).

P. 32.2(a); ¶ 20 (App. 2020).

“Judicial rulings alone do not support a finding of bias or partiality without a showing of an extrajudicial source of bias or deep-seated favoritism.” ¶ 22 (App. 2020).

State v. 4 ¶ 19 (2012); ¶ 16 (App. 2020).

¶ 4 (2017); ¶ 16 (App. 2020).