Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Herrera, 905 P.2d 1377.

100 citing documents.

State v. Cloud Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cloud Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.2(a)(3); (holding appellate counsel’s waiver of issues on appeal binds the defendant, “and those waived issues cannot be resurrected in post-conviction proceeding”).
State v. Jenkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jenkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶7 “A petition for post-conviction relief is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court,” and this Court reviews “a trial court’s 3 STATE v. JENKINS Decision of the Court factual findings for clear error.” –48 (App. 1995) ( ).
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Generally, appellate counsel is not ineffective for selecting some issues and rejecting others.”
State v. Jaramillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
To raise a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, “the petitioner must offer evidence of a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the outcome of the appeal would have been different.”
State v. Lamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Lamb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ely Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ely Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.2(a); (holding appellate counsel’s waiver of other issues on appeal binds a defendant and these waived issues cannot be resurrected in a subsequent post-conviction relief proceeding).
State v. Bolin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bolin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“[To raise a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel], the petitioner must offer 3 STATE v. BOLIN Decision of the Court evidence of a reasonable probability that but for counsel
State v. Tiggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tiggs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.”); (issues waived on appeal cannot be resurrected in later post-conviction proceeding).
State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
To prevail on such a claim, a defendant must overcome the “strong presumption” that counsel performed “within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance” by demonstrating that counsel’s conduct fell below “prevailing professional norms.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-89
State v. Piedra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Piedra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Regarding ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, appellate counsel is not required to “raise every possible or even meritorious issue on appeal.”
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
State of Arizona v. Richard Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Richard Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
“A petition for post-conviction relief is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.”
Jacob T. Osterkamp v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Jacob T. Osterkamp v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
process entitles defendant to effective appellate counsel); (same); (recognizing non-pleading defendant has right to effective assistance of appellate counsel and “ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is a cognizable Rule 32 claim”); (same).
State of Arizona v. Glenda Lorraine Rumsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Glenda Lorraine Rumsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(court‟s factual determinations reviewed for clear error).
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
“We review a trial court’s factual findings for clear error.”
State v. Bennett 146 P.3d 63 Ariz. 2006
State v. Bennett 146 P.3d 63 Ariz. 2006
State v. Febles 115 P.3d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Febles 115 P.3d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State of Arizona v. Rodney George Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Rodney George Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Adam Albert Rosales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Adam Albert Rosales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. French 7 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. French 7 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
The Comment to Rule 32.2(a)(3) provides that, with respect to trial error, “the state may simply show that the defendant did not raise the error at trial, on appeal, or in a previous collateral proceeding, and that would be sufficient to show that the defendant has waived the claim.” , (defendant must show that failure to raise issue on appeal fell below prevailing professional norms and but for the deficiency, outcome on appeal would have been different).
State v. Rosario 987 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Rosario 987 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Clark 2 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Clark 2 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(holding that an allegation of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is encompassed within Ariz. R.Crim.
State v. Pruett 912 P.2d 1357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Pruett 912 P.2d 1357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
1990, 1993 , 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987)