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. Watson, 653 P.2d 351.

96 citing documents.

  • State v. Ysea 956 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Ysea 956 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1998
    overruled on other grounds *504
  • State v. Fillmore 927 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Fillmore 927 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Matter of Arrick 882 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1994
  • Matter of Arrick 882 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1994
    (criminal defendants are entitled to at least minimum standards of competence).
  • State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
    2052, 2068 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 698 , (1984) ( , ).
  • State v. Adams 750 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Adams 750 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. D'Ambrosio 750 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. D'Ambrosio 750 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    We noted the other efforts of counsel on petitioner’s behalf, , which established the applicable test when the decision on appeal was rendered.
  • State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Vincent 708 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Vincent 708 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    Finally, , requires that a court have discretion to hear late defense motions.
  • State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. De Nistor 694 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. De Nistor 694 P.2d 237 Ariz. 1985
    “We have always held that disagreements as to trial strategy * * * will not support an ineffectiveness claim, as long as the challenged conduct could have some reasoned basis.”
  • State v. Parris 696 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Parris 696 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    appellant argues that trial counsel’s failure to request a Dessureault hearing after a single photo lineup was shown to Martin fell below the minimum professional standard of competence.
  • State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
    In Arizona, convicted defendants have needed to prove two facts to succeed in an ineffectiveness of counsel claim: (1) that counsel lacked minimal competence, , and (2) that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defense.
  • State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
    The standard of “minimal competence”
  • State v. Meeker 693 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Meeker 693 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1984
    The first prong, , (rejecting the “farce, sham or mockery of justice standard”), requires that the attorney show at least minimal competence in representing a criminal defendant.
  • State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Goswick 691 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Goswick 691 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1984
    In State v. Watson, we stated that “the proper standard is whether under the circumstances the attorney showed at least minimal competence in representing the criminal defendant.”
  • State v. Noriega 697 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Noriega 697 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    Assuming that this argument were even available at this stage of the proceedings
  • State v. Gillies 691 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Gillies 691 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Noleen 688 P.2d 993 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Noleen 688 P.2d 993 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Lee 689 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Prince 689 P.2d 515 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Prince 689 P.2d 515 Ariz. 1984
    We recently discussed the first part of the test we employ in these cases: The standard for determining effective assistance of counsel is “whether under the circumstances the attorney showed at least minimal competence in representing the criminal defendant.”
  • State v. Lee 689 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1984
    this Court rejected the “farce, sham or mockery of justice” standard for counsel’s ineffectiveness and adopted the “minimal competence” standard.
  • State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Chaney 686 P.2d 1265 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
    The standard for determining whether representation is sufficient is “whether under the circumstances the attorney showed at least minimal competence in representing the criminal defendant.”
  • State v. Gortarez 686 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Gortarez 686 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Hankins 686 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Hankins 686 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1984