Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Ramon Escareno Meraz, 307 P.3d 1013.

48 citing documents.

State v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“We will not disturb that ruling unless the court clearly has abused its discretion.” ¶ 1 (App. 2013).
State v. Parise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Parise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Roberts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
have no constitutional right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings.” ¶ 4 (App. 2013).
State v. Maloney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Maloney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Tingue Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Tingue Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Threadgill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Threadgill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶¶ 5-6 (App. 2013); Martinez, 566 U.S. at 14-17.
State v. Evans 506 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Evans 506 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 4 (App. 2013); –37 (1996).
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Ortiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Ortiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
is Rule 32 counsel was ineffective, because he was found guilty at trial (meaning he is a non- pleading defendant), he has “no constitutional right to counsel in post- conviction proceedings; thus, despite the existence of state rules providing counsel, a claim that Rule 32 counsel was ineffective is not a cognizable ground for relief in a subsequent Rule 32 proceeding.” ¶ 4 (App. 2013) (citing cases).
State v. Ontjes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ontjes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Armbruster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Armbruster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
2 STATE v. ARMBRUSTER Decision of the Court “have no constitutional right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings; thus, despite the existence of state rules providing counsel, a claim that Rule 32 counsel was ineffective is not a cognizable ground for relief in a subsequent Rule 32 proceeding.” ¶ 4 (App. 2013).
State v. Dickinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Dickinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Ruling that a claim of ineffective assistance of Rule 32 counsel by a non-pleading defendant is not cognizable under Arizona law, ¶ 4 (App. 2013), the trial court summarily dismissed the notice.
State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Explained State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶¶ 4–6 (App. 2013), the Martinez holding does not affect Arizona state court post-conviction proceedings and does not permit Hernandez to overcome the time limits of Rule 32.4(a).
State v. Cicogni Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Explained State v. Cicogni Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Burns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Explained State v. Burns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶¶ 4-6 (App. 2013), the holding in Martinez concerned federal habeas procedure and established no new constitutional principle applying to post-conviction proceedings under Arizona law.
State v. Hampton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Explained State v. Hampton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
However, ¶¶ 4-6, 2 STATE v. HAMPTON Decision of the Court cert.
State v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶¶ 4-6 (App. 2013) (rejecting argument that Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) requires otherwise).
State v. Shireh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Shireh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Osorio-Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Explained State v. Osorio-Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶¶ 4-6 (App. 2013), that holding does not apply to Arizona post-conviction proceedings.
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Navejas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Navejas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cameron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cameron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Aviles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Aviles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶¶ 5-6, (holding the Supreme Court “limited its decision” in Martinez “to the application of procedural default in federal habeas review”; accordingly, it does not affect consideration of state claims brought under Rule 32).
State v. Simmons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Simmons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015