Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Pruett, 912 P.2d 1357.

48 citing documents.

State v. Tuttle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Tuttle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
P. 33.4(b)(3)(C) (emphasis added); (“[A] second notice of post-conviction relief for a claim of ineffectiveness of previous Rule 32 counsel is timely if filed within 30 days of the order and mandate affirming the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s first petition for post-conviction relief.”).
State v. Montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
petition for post-conviction relief, the counterpart of a direct appeal.”()); (a pending proceeding does not suspend the defendant’s right to file a PCR notice).
State v. Muldrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Muldrow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶7 Defendants pleading guilty are “constitutionally entitled to the effective assistance of counsel on [their] first petition for post-conviction relief, the counterpart of a direct appeal.” see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Jacott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jacott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Sanders Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Sanders Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ontjes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ontjes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
He asserted that his IAC claim of his PCR counsel in the 07 case was a (“pleading defendant constitutionally entitled to the effective assistance of counsel on his first petition for post-conviction relief” and “must be afforded an opportunity to assert a claim regarding the effectiveness of the attorney representing him on the first petition for post- conviction relief”
State v. Rivera-Longoria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Rivera-Longoria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Valdespino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Valdespino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
–31 (App. 1995); –92 (1995).
State v. Brakhop Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Brakhop Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
However, because this is Brakhop’s post- conviction relief proceeding of-right, ineffective assistance of PCR counsel 3 STATE v. BRAKHOP Decision of the Court is a cognizable claim under Rule 32 and may be raised in a timely subsequent PCR petition.2 -31 (App. 1995).
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Kirtley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Kirtley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Volpe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Volpe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Darren Irving Goldin 365 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Darren Irving Goldin 365 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
§ 13-4231(6) (defendant may institute post-conviction proceeding if the “failure to appeal from the judgment or sentence, or both, within the prescribed time was without fault on his part.”); (pleading defendant’s first Rule 32 proceeding equivalent of non- pleading defendant’s appeal); -31, -60 (App. 1995).
State v. Antrobus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Antrobus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Further, ineffective assistance of post-conviction relief counsel is not a valid claim under Rule 32 unless made against counsel who provided representation in a petition for post-conviction relief “of-right.”
State v. Gunter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gunter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Richard Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Richard Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
[and] the obvious method is by means of a second petition.‟” 238 P.3d at 640, (alterations in Petty).
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
¶19 this court examined the nature of the pleading defendant‟s rights to review and counsel and how Rule 32 serves as the procedural conduit for the defendant‟s exercise of these rights.
State v. Petty 238 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Petty 238 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
¶ 8 , , supp. op., , , Petty contends on review that, because the first of-right proceeding is “equivalent to a direct appeal” for a pleading defendant, such a defendant is entitled to raise in a successive post-conviction proceeding the claim that Rule 32 counsel in the first proceeding was ineffective.
State v. Cazares 72 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Ernesto Luis Cazares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Ernesto Luis Cazares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
P.2d 1357 (App. 1995) (scope of Rule 32 relief interpreted liberally in allowance for elimination of right to appeal following guilty plea).
State v. Cazares 72 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
(scope of Rule 32 relief interpreted liberally in allowance for elimination of right to appeal following guilty plea).