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. Schultz 681 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Schultz 681 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1984
    The standard for determining whether assistance was effective is “whether under the circumstances the attorney showed at least minimal competence in representing the criminal defendant.”
  • State v. Smith 681 P.2d 1374 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Smith 681 P.2d 1374 Ariz. 1984
    The standard for judging effective assistance of counsel is “whether under the circumstances the attorney showed at least minimal competence in representing the criminal defendant.”
  • State v. Bishop 679 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Bishop 679 P.2d 1054 Ariz. 1984
    The standard to determine whether an accused received effective assistance of counsel “is whether under the circumstances the attorney showed at least minimal competence in representing the criminal defendant.”
  • State v. Espinosa-Gamez 678 P.2d 1379 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Espinosa-Gamez 678 P.2d 1379 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Flores 682 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Flores 682 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    the appellant argues that his trial attorney’s representation was below the standard of minimal competence.
  • State v. Bojorquez 675 P.2d 1314 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Bojorquez 675 P.2d 1314 Ariz. 1984
  • Matter of Appeal in Pima County, Juv. Action 679 P.2d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • Matter of Appeal in Pima County, Juv. Action 679 P.2d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Chee 680 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Chee 680 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Radjenovich 674 P.2d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Radjenovich 674 P.2d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Edwards 677 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Edwards 677 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    The new test for effective assistance of counsel, , , : “whether under the circumstances the attorney showed at least minimal competence in representing the criminal defendant.” A defendant is entitled to an attorney whose performance meets minimum professional standard.
  • State v. Lee 689 P.2d 170 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Lee 689 P.2d 170 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Bernal 671 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Bernal 671 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Oppenheimer 673 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Oppenheimer 673 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    the standard for effective assistance of counsel in Arizona is whether counsel showed at least minimal competence in representing the criminal defendant.
  • State v. Harding 670 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Harding 670 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Suarez 670 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Suarez 670 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    the standard for effective assistance of counsel in Arizona has been whether counsel showed at least minimal competence in representing the criminal defendant.
  • State v. Hanson 674 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Hanson 674 P.2d 850 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    The other issues that appellant’s attorney failed to raise require a
  • State v. Nightwine 671 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Nightwine 671 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    Since this appeal was still pending as of October 18, 1982
  • State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. McDaniel 665 P.2d 70 Ariz. 1983
    the standard for effective assistance of counsel in Arizona has been whether counsel showed at least minimal competence in representing the criminal defendant.
  • State v. Huffman 670 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Huffman 670 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    which is whether under the circumstances the attorney showed at least minimal competence in representing his criminal defendant.
  • State v. Nunez 660 P.2d 858 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Nunez 660 P.2d 858 Ariz. 1983
    We accepted review of this petition for the sole purpose of considering petitioner’s claim that the standard for legal representation in criminal cases, , should be applied retroactively.
  • State v. Woratzeck 657 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Woratzeck 657 P.2d 865 Ariz. 1982
    we set out the standard for judging competency of counsel.
  • State v. Menard 661 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Menard 661 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    We have, on our own, also examined the issue of competency of counsel raised by appellant and then rejected by him since he did not believe it reached the level of a “farce or sham.” , the court enunciated a new standard, “whether under the circumstances the attorney showed at least minimal competence in representing the criminal defendant.” Appellant suggests his defense counsel fell below the standard because he did not put him on the witness stand and meet the scientific ev
  • State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1982