Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Petty, 238 P.3d 637.

66 citing documents.

State v. Stryker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Stryker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 11 (App. 2010) (IAC claim pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)); Ariz. Sup.
State v. McBee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. McBee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 11 (App. 2010) (“[I]mplicating the Sixth Amendment, the [ineffective assistance] claim is cognizable under Rule [33.1(a)].”).
State of Arizona v. Larry Dean Anderson 547 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Larry Dean Anderson 547 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2024
¶ 12; ¶ 11 (App. 2010) (“The ‘purpose of the preclusion rule’ is to 7 STATE V. ANDERSON Opinion of the Court ‘require[] a defendant to raise all known claims for relief in a single petition to the trial court, thereby av
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Stuebe 467 P.3d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Stuebe 467 P.3d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 6 (App. 2011) ( ¶ 7 (App. 2010)); n.7 (1962) (citing statutory definition section when interpreting rules of criminal procedure).
State v. Jordan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 9 (App. 2010) (“[A] pleading defendant .
State v. Jordan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Parham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Parham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Terranova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Terranova Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.2(b); -73, ¶ 10 (App. 2010).
State v. Braxton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Braxton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 11 (App. 2010); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
substantiating the claim and indicating why the claim was not stated in the previous petition or in a timely manner”); ¶ 4, (quoting Rule 32.2(b)).
State v. Ventura Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ventura Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.4(a); ¶ 11 (App. 2010).
State v. Hampton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hampton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Figueroa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Figueroa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 11 (App. 2010) (holding that a claim for ineffectiveness of counsel implicates the Sixth Amendment and is therefore encompassed within Rule 32.1(a)).
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 10 (App. 2010); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Bolden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bolden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel do not fall within Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h) because they are “cognizable under Rule 32.1(a).” ¶ 11, see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Similarly, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel do not fall within Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h) because they are “cognizable under Rule 32.1(a).” ¶ 11 (App. 2010); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Richardson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Richardson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
ms of an unconstitutional guilty plea and sentences and ineffective assistance of counsel do not fall within Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h) because they are cognizable under Rule 32.1(a) (authorizing a petition for post-conviction relief on the basis that “[t]he conviction or the sentence was in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the State of Arizona.”); ¶ 11 (App. 2010) (holding that a claim for ineffectiveness of counsel implicates the Sixth Amendment and is therefore en
State v. Walton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Walton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Preclusion is designed to “require a defendant to raise all known claims for relief in a single petition,” ¶ 11 (App. 2010) (citation and internal quotation omitted), and thereby “prevent endless or nearly endless reviews of the same case in the same trial court.” ¶ 11 (2002).
State of Arizona v. Darren Irving Goldin 365 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Darren Irving Goldin 365 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Hoyos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hoyos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Claims of 2 STATE v. HOYOS Decision of the Court ineffective assistance of counsel do not fall within Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g), or (h) because they are “cognizable under Rule 32.1(a).” ¶ 11
State v. Cameron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cameron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
P. 32.4(a) (“Any notice [of post-conviction relief] not timely filed may only raise claims pursuant to Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h).”); ¶ 11, (ineffective assistance of counsel claims do not fall within Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h) because they are “cognizable under Rule 32.1(a)”).
State v. Simmons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Simmons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
P. 32.1(g), 32.4(a) (claim of significant change in law can be raised in untimely notice for post-conviction relief); ¶ 11, (claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, standing alone, grounded in Rule 32.1(a)).
State v. Robledo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Robledo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015