Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Donald, 10 P.3d 1193.

314 citing documents.

State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hobbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hobbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hatchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hatchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 18 (App. 2005) (to raise colorable claim and avoid summary dismissal of petition, defendant must establish, inter alia, counsel's performance was objectively unreasonable based on applicable professional standards); ¶ 21 (App. 2000) (to warrant evidentiary hearing, Rule 32 claim "must consist of more than conclusory assertions").
State v. Reyes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Reyes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶5 P.3d 1193 (App. 2000), because that attorney did not advise him of the risks of going to trial or of the evidence against him.
State v. Benally Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Benally Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Beasley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Beasley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 21 (App. 2000) (to warrant evidentiary hearing, Rule 32 claim “must consist of more than conclusory assertions”).
State v. Witherspoon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Preayer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Witherspoon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Preayer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 46 (App. 2000) (a defendant suffers a constitutionally significant injury when he loses a favorable plea bargain because of ineffective assistance of counsel).
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶3 Ramirez filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, P.3d 1193 (App. 2000).
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Roman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Roman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
for not advising him that he could plead directly to the superior court without a plea agreement, which would have preserved his right to present mitigation in the hopes of 2 STATE v. THOMAS Decision of the Court obtaining a lesser sentence of 4.5 years.1 he was not given enough information to make an informed decision as to this course of action.
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
2 STATE v. BROWN Decision of the Court 406, (2) prosecutorial misconduct for a Brady violation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), for making a statement on the record Brown believed to have been inaccurate; and (3) discovery of a violation of his constitutional rights under the guise of newly discovered evidence.
State v. Barriga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Salerno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Barriga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Salerno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 133, 147 (2012) (holding that counsel’s representation may be found constitutionally deficient for failure to timely communicate a formal plea offer to a client); ¶ 9, (recognizing defense counsel’s duty to communicate the terms and relative merits of a plea offer).
State v. Smoots Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Smoots Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sullivan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tracy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tracy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sullivan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
on a prior plea that Sullivan rejected, before accepting Sullivan’s guilty plea, the superior court engaged in a lengthy settlement conference with Sullivan.
State v. Yazzie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Yazzie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Covey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Covey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 14 (App. 2000); see also Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 133, 145 (2012) (Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel extends to the consideration of plea offers that lapse or are rejected).
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Leyva 389 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Leyva 389 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
(to warrant evidentiary hearing, Rule 32 claim “must consist of more than conclusory assertions”).
State v. Duke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017