Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bustamante, 447 P.2d 243.

49 citing documents.

State v. Beckhum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
But it’s not, because when a Rule 20 motion “is denied at the close of the state’s case, and the defendant goes forward and presents his case, he is deemed bound if deficiencies in the evidence are supplied.” (a defendant who proceeds in this way “waive[s] any error”).
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.