DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Brookshire, 480 P.2d 985.

42 citing documents.

  • State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Fierroa 804 P.2d 72 Ariz. 1990
    While possession of recently stolen property is not sufficient in itself to warrant a conviction for burglary, , evidence of the possession of the stolen property, coupled with Fierro’s inconsistent and unlikely explanations, would have been sufficient to allow the Vogt case to go to a jury.
  • State v. Ashelman 671 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Ashelman 671 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Mena 624 P.2d 1292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Mena 624 P.2d 1292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Ellis 572 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Ellis 572 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Rodriguez 560 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Rodriguez 560 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1977
    E. g., , (late hour, unexplained presence in residence of another, and attempt to hide upon discovery); , (entry through win *334 dow); , (possession of recently stolen property is insufficient).
  • State v. Rogers 545 P.2d 930 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Rogers 545 P.2d 930 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Bouillon 540 P.2d 1219 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Bouillon 540 P.2d 1219 Ariz. 1975
    However, , we held that possession of recently stolen property was sufficient corroboration of testimony of an accomplice.”
  • State v. Quatsling 536 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Quatsling 536 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Suarez 530 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Suarez 530 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Wilder 529 P.2d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Wilder 529 P.2d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Lamoreaux 525 P.2d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • Criticized 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. McFarlin 517 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. McFarlin 517 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Miller 514 P.2d 1039 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Miller 514 P.2d 1039 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. McCline 514 P.2d 490 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. McCline 514 P.2d 490 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Spencer 513 P.2d 140 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Spencer 513 P.2d 140 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. McKinney 503 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. McKinney 503 P.2d 946 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Renaud 499 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Renaud 499 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1972
    As to appellant’s second contention, this Court, in State v. Brookshire, 107 Ariz. *419 21, has stated that “[f]or a defendant to have been denied effective counsel, his counsel must have been so incompetent to amount to a farce or mockery of justice.” 107 Ariz. at 24, 480 P.2d at 988 .
  • State v. Morrow 493 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Morrow 493 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1972
    have stated that we will not reverse a conviction upon the ground of inadequate assistance of counsel unless the accused can show that his representation was a farce ox a sham, shocking to the conscience, or a mockery of justice, , 491 ,P.2d 834, filed 17 December 1971; , .
  • State v. Tinghitella 491 P.2d 834 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Tinghitella 491 P.2d 834 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Brown 489 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Brown 489 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1971