Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lopez, 412 P.2d 882.

33 citing documents.

State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
–06 (1966) (counsel’s failure to challenge incriminating evidence resulted from lack of preparedness and constituted ineffective assistance of counsel).
State v. Peyatt 637 P.2d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Peyatt 637 P.2d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Mendibles 629 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Mendibles 629 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Alaffa 617 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1980
State v. Alaffa 617 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1980
In our opinion, these facts do not suggest a , relied upon by appellant.
State v. Williams 593 P.2d 896 Ariz. 1979
State v. Williams 593 P.2d 896 Ariz. 1979
State v. Pacheco 588 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1978
State v. Pacheco 588 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1978
*92 Based on these facts alone, Pacheco claims he is entitled to a
State v. Watson 586 P.2d 1253 Ariz. 1978
State v. Watson 586 P.2d 1253 Ariz. 1978
State v. Scott 576 P.2d 1383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Scott 576 P.2d 1383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
upon which appellant relies, we stated: “It is counsel’s duty to investigate carefully all defenses of fact and of law that may be available to the defendant, and if his failure to do so results in withdrawing a crucial defense from the case, the defendant has not had the assistance to which he
State v. Farni 539 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1975
State v. Farni 539 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1975
Trevino v. State 503 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Trevino v. State 503 P.2d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
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
: “It is counsel’s duty to investigate carefully all defenses of fact' and of law that may be available to the defendant, and if his failure to do so results in withdrawing a crucial defense from the case, the defendant has not had the assistance to which he is entitled, [citations omitted]” 3 Ari
State v. Hill 450 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1969
State v. Hill 450 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1969
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
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. Blankenship 151 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 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
as Arizona’s authority that a defendant in a criminal case must be adequately represented.
Loftis v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 417 P.2d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Loftis v. State Ex Rel. Eyman 417 P.2d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Petitioner’s attack on the validity of his conviction, based on this court’s , is without merit.