Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bustamante, 447 P.2d 243.
- Delozier v. Evans 763 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- Delozier v. Evans 763 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- State v. Poland 645 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1982
- State v. Poland 645 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1982
- State v. Sanchez 635 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- State v. Sanchez 635 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
- State v. Lawrence 599 P.2d 754 Ariz. 1979
-
State v. Lawrence
599 P.2d 754
Ariz. 1979
this court held that, without a showing of prejudice, there was no reversible error in playing taped instructions to the jury in defendant’s absence.
- State v. Pittman 574 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1978
- State v. Pittman 574 P.2d 1290 Ariz. 1978
- State v. Ramirez 533 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1975
-
State v. Ramirez
533 P.2d 665
Ariz. 1975
* * * ” -54 , -46 (1968).
- State v. Lamoreaux 525 P.2d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
-
State v. Lamoreaux
525 P.2d 303
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
The test of when counsel’s assistance becomes less than “effective” has been variously stated as being when the representation is a “farce or a sham”, , or when counsel is “so incompetent as to have made the trial a farce or mockery of justice.”
- State v. Tellez 523 P.2d 62 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Tellez 523 P.2d 62 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Jones 521 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Jones 521 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1974
- State v. Delvecchio 519 P.2d 1137 Ariz. 1974
-
State v. Delvecchio
519 P.2d 1137
Ariz. 1974
We believe the evidence was clearly sufficient to present the matter to the jury
- State v. Savoy 514 P.2d 452 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Savoy 514 P.2d 452 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Patricella 510 P.2d 39 Ariz. 1973
-
State v. Patricella
510 P.2d 39
Ariz. 1973
we said: “In regard to defendant’s motion at the close of the state’s case the law is well settled that by going forward and presenting his case defendant has waived any error in the denial of such motion, if any deficiencies in the evidence in the state’s case are supplied when defendant’s case
- State v. Flores 505 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
- State v. Flores 505 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
- State v. McKinney 503 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1972
- State v. McKinney 503 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1972
- State v. Burton 490 P.2d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- State v. Burton 490 P.2d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- State v. Brown 489 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1971
- Criticized State v. Brown 489 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Brookshire 480 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1971
-
State v. Brookshire
480 P.2d 985
Ariz. 1971
However, “effective representation cannot be equated with successful representation.”
- State v. King 478 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1970
- State v. King 478 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Sellers 475 P.2d 722 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Sellers 475 P.2d 722 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Hatten 474 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Hatten 474 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Fenton 472 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
- State v. Fenton 472 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
- State v. Cufio 471 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
- State v. Cufio 471 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
- 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. Hughes 456 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1969
-
State v. Hughes
456 P.2d 393
Ariz. 1969
We agree with the statement in State v. Busta *539 -mante, , that “Effective representation cannot be equated with successful representation.” We cannot say that defendant failed to receive effective assistance of counsel.