Cited by

¶ 23 (App. 1999) (explaining a showing of prejudice requires more than "mere speculation").

To show prejudice, the defendant must offer “some evidence of a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the outcome of the [proceeding] would have been different.” ¶ 23 (App. 1999).

¶ 23 (App. 1999); ¶ 20-21 (App. 2000).

¶ 23 (App. 1999); ¶ 21 (App. 2000) (“[D]efendant’s challenge must consist of more than conclusory assertions and be supported by more than regret.”); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 112 (2011).

¶ 23 (App. 1999) (recognizing that a successful PCR claim must be based on "a provable reality, not mere speculation").

¶ 26 (App. 1999) (“The Arizona [L]egislature enacted laws effective January 1, 1994, eliminating the possibility of parole for crimes committed after that date.”); ¶ 21 (App. 1998) (noting that § 41-1604.09 “provides for parole eligibility of persons incarcerated for felonies c

¶ 23 (App. 1999) (noting the showing of prejudice needed to obtain relief on an IAC claim “must be that of a provable reality, not mere speculation”).

We have 3 STATE v. YOUNG Opinion of the Court applied the mailbox rule to the filing of notices of appeal, id.; PCR notices, ¶ 10 (App. 1999); and petitions for review, Goracke, 210 Ariz. at 23, ¶ 13.

P. 33.4(b)(3)(D); ¶ 7 (App. 1999).

The superior court may summarily dismiss an untimely Rule 33.1(a) claim, ¶ 7 (App. 1999), unless the defendant sufficiently explains “why the failure to timely file a notice was not the defendant’s fault,” Rule 33.4(b)(3)(D).

at 687–89; ¶ 23 (App. 1999).

¶ 23 (App. 1999) (To state a colorable IAC claim, “[t]he petitioner .

The court may summarily dismiss a notice as untimely if it is not filed within 90 days, ¶ 7 (App. 1999), unless the defendant “adequately explains why the failure to timely file a notice was not the defendant’s fault.” Ariz. R. Crim.

IAC claims directly related to the entry of the plea may be asserted, but the burden is on the defendant to show IAC, and “the showing must be that of a provable reality, not mere speculation.” ¶ 23 (App. 1999).

[and] some evidence of a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the outcome of the [proceeding] would have been different.” ¶ 23 (App. 1999) (citations omitted).

The court may summarily dismiss a notice as untimely if it is not filed within ninety days, ¶ 7 (App. 1999), unless the defendant “adequately explains why the failure to timely file a notice was not the defendant’s fault.” Ariz. R. Crim.

“[T]he [petitioner’s] showing must be that of a provable reality, not mere speculation.” ¶ 23 (App. 1999).