Cited by

“But once the State engages in plea bargaining, the defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to be adequately informed of the consequences before deciding whether to accept or reject the offer.” ¶ 14 (App. 2000).

–14 ¶¶ 17, 21 (App. 2000).

¶ 8 (App. 2000); see also Ariz. R. Crim.

¶ 16 (App. 2000) (citing cases); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

“To establish deficient performance during plea negotiations, a petitioner must prove that the lawyer either (1) gave erroneous advice or (2) failed to give information necessary to allow the petitioner to make an informed decision whether to accept the plea.” ¶ 16 (App. 2000).

In the context of plea negotiations, Lawrence must show counsel “either (1) gave erroneous advice or (2) failed to give information necessary to allow [him] to make an informed decision whether to accept the plea.” ¶ 16 (App. 2000); ¶ 28 (2024).

In the context of plea negotiations, Pacheco must show counsel “either (1) gave erroneous advice or (2) failed to give information necessary to allow [her] to make an informed decision whether to accept the plea.” State v. Donald, 3 STATE v. PACHECO Decision of the Court ¶ 16 (App. 2000); ¶ 28 (2024).

Once the court accepts a plea agreement, it is 2

¶ 22 (App. 2017); ¶ 21 (App. 2000).

“To establish deficient performance during plea negotiations, a petitioner must prove that the lawyer either (1) gave erroneous advice or (2) failed to give information necessary to allow the petitioner to make an informed decision whether to accept the plea.” ¶ 16 (App. 2000).

¶ 22 (App. 2017); ¶ 21 (App. 2000).

¶ 22 (App. 2017); ¶ 21 (App. 2000).

a few days before trial from another jail inmate.” 3 ¶ 14 (App. 2000), the court of appeals acknowledged that “once the State engages in plea bargaining, the defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to be adequately informed of the consequences before deciding whether to accept or reject the offer.” Following Donald, prosecutors commonly recite the terms of a plea of

¶ 22 (App. 2017); ¶ 21 (App. 2000).

Specific to plea negotiations, a petitioner must prove that counsel “either (1) gave erroneous advice or (2) failed to give information necessary to allow the petitioner to make an informed decision whether to accept the plea.” ¶ 16 (App. 2000).

Instead, counsel’s duty is simply to provide the defendant with advice and information “necessary to allow the [defendant] to make an informed decision whether to accept [a] plea [offer].” ¶ 16 (App. 2000) (citations omitted).

¶ 21 (App. 2000) (“To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the defendant’s challenge must consist of more than conclusory assertions and be supported by more than regret.”).

“To establish deficient performance during plea negotiations, a petitioner must prove that the lawyer either (1) gave erroneous advice or (2) failed to give information necessary to allow the petitioner to make an informed decision whether to accept the plea.” ¶ 16 (App. 2000) (citing cases).

“To establish deficient performance during plea negotiations, a petitioner must prove that the lawyer either (1) gave erroneous advice or (2) failed to give information necessary to allow the petitioner to make an informed decision whether to accept the plea.” ¶ 16 (App. 2000) (citing cases).

¶ 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).