Cited by

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

322 citing documents.

  • State v. Hardisty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶8 ¶ 46 (App. 2000), this court held that a defendant "suffers a constitutionally significant injury" when the defendant "loses a favorable plea bargain as a consequence of ineffective assistance of counsel."
  • State v. Santistevan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Santistevan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Defense counsel need do no more than inform Santistevan of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds “an issue 2
  • State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Quiroz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Quiroz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶3 The State extended at least one plea offer to Quiroz, which expired given the passage of time without being accepted
  • State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • 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