Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Kruchten, 417 P.2d 510.

155 citing documents.

State v. Rackley 477 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1970
This court has stated that it will intervene only when the representation is of such quality as to be farcical or a sham, , , cert.
State v. Andrews 476 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1970
State v. Andrews 476 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1970
State v. Palmer 474 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Palmer 474 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Turnbaugh, 10 Ariz.App.
State v. Belcher 472 P.2d 39 Ariz. 1970
State v. Belcher 472 P.2d 39 Ariz. 1970
State v. Cufio 471 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Criticized State v. Cufio 471 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
: “ ‘Advocacy is a skill and art; easy to criticize, difficult to fairly appraise.
State v. Davis 467 P.2d 743 Ariz. 1970
State v. Davis 467 P.2d 743 Ariz. 1970
To support such a contention the representation of counsel must have been such that it was “so incompetent or inefficient as to make the trial a farce or a mockery of justice.” Bouchard v. United States, 344 F.2d 872 (9th Cir.); , , cert.
State v. Streett 463 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Streett 463 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Pickard 462 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1969
State v. Pickard 462 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1969
See, State v. Jelks, 105 Ariz., 175
State v. Jelks 461 P.2d 473 Ariz. 1969
State v. Jelks 461 P.2d 473 Ariz. 1969
State v. Turnbaugh 457 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Turnbaugh 457 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Collins 454 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1969
State v. Collins 454 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1969
The final point raised by appellants as to the representation of both defendants by the same public defender
State v. Tafoya 454 P.2d 569 Ariz. 1969
Criticized State v. Tafoya 454 P.2d 569 Ariz. 1969
we held that a conviction will be held invalid only if the representation by counsel is a farce or a sham, saying: “Advocacy is a skill and art; easy to criticize, difficult to fairly appraise.
State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
State v. Boag 453 P.2d 508 Ariz. 1969
we stated: “* * * It lies behind a defendant’s natural inclination to bring hindsight to bear on his lawyer’s performance and often contains his second thoughts concerning his plea of guilty and the advice ■of counsel which led to it.
State v. Hill 450 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1969
State v. Hill 450 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1969
417 P.2d .510 (1966); Maye v. Pescor, 162 F.2d 641, 643 (8th Cir.1947) ; People v. Ibarra, 60 Cal.2d 460 , 34 Cal.Rptr.
State v. Bustamante 447 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1968
Criticized State v. Bustamante 447 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1968
: “ ‘Advocacy is a skill and art; easy to criticize, difficult to fairly appraise.
State v. Jones 446 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Jones 446 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Rojas 443 P.2d 427 Ariz. 1968
State v. Rojas 443 P.2d 427 Ariz. 1968
State v. Stewart, 3 Ariz.App.
State v. Boggs 441 P.2d 778 Ariz. 1968
State v. Boggs 441 P.2d 778 Ariz. 1968
State v. Mance 438 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Mance 438 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Barron v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 437 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Barron v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 437 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
and cases cited therein.
State v. Kelley 434 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Kelley 434 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Montez 432 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1967
State v. Montez 432 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1967
Tucson Gas & Electric Company v. Schantz 428 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Tucson Gas & Electric Company v. Schantz 428 P.2d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Cuzick 428 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Cuzick 428 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
The Arizona Supreme Court in a case decided approximately four months after the Lopez decision, , certiorari denied 23 January 1967, 385 U.S. 1043 , 87 S.Ct.
State v. Hudgens 423 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1967
Criticized State v. Hudgens 423 P.2d 90 Ariz. 1967
that a conviction will not be held invalid unless the representation by counsel was a farce or a sham.
State v. Jackson 420 P.2d 270 Ariz. 1966