DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Williams, 593 P.2d 896.

64 citing documents.

  • State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    –54, (1979) (in the absence of additional evidence, our supreme court has held that a superior court does not abuse its discretion in failing to order, sua sponte, a Rule 11 evaluation based on defense counsel’s own assertions that the defendant is unable to assist in his defense).
  • State v. Brents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Brents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    -54 (1979); (affirming denial of competency evaluation where motion was based on "only the statements of counsel relating to defendant's low intelligence, moodiness, confusion, and inability to clearly relate the facts involved.").
  • State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman, Jr. 324 P.3d 851 Ariz. 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman, Jr. 324 P.3d 851 Ariz. 2014
    See, (finding appeal untimely because defendant filed more than one year “after he was sentenced on the charge”); (citing Rule 26.16 and noting that the sentence “is final and appealable at the time of its ‘pronounceme
  • State v. Robinson 869 P.2d 1196 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Robinson 869 P.2d 1196 Ariz. 1994
    State v. Heasley, 23 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Alves 851 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Alves 851 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Berger 828 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Berger 828 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Stotts 695 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Stotts 695 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1985
    State v. Heasley, 23 Ariz.App.
  • 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. Watson 653 P.2d 351 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Watson 653 P.2d 351 Ariz. 1982
    Appellant urges that this court replace the Arizona “farce, sham, or mockery of justice” test for counsel’s effectiveness, , with the Ninth Circuit’s standard of “reasonably competent and effective defense representation.” Cooper v. Fitzharris, 586 F.2d 1325, 1328 (1978).
  • State v. Garcia 652 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Garcia 652 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Carriger 645 P.2d 816 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Carriger 645 P.2d 816 Ariz. 1982
    “ * * * It has been the rule in Arizona since State v. Kruchten, (citations omitted), that a conviction will not be set aside unless the representation by a defendant’s lawyer was so ineffective that the proceedings were reduced to a farce, sham or mockery of justice, (citations omitted)”
  • State v. Tapp 653 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Tapp 653 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Dalglish 639 P.2d 323 Ariz. 1982
  • Meredith v. Raines 640 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1982
  • Meredith v. Raines 640 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Dalglish 639 P.2d 323 Ariz. 1982
    We have discussed two standards for ineffective assistance of counsel: the farce, sham or mockery test, , or the reasonably competent and effective “diligent conscientious advocate,” Cooper v. Fitzharris, 586 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1978), cert.
  • State v. Piatt 644 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Piatt 644 P.2d 881 Ariz. 1981
    EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL We have discussed two standards for ineffective assistance of counsel: the farce, sham or mockery test, , or the reasonably competent and effective “diligent conscientious advocate,” Cooper v. Fitzharris, 586 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1978), cert.
  • State v. Ortiz 639 P.2d 1020 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Ortiz 639 P.2d 1020 Ariz. 1981
    The present test in Arizona for ineffective assistance of counsel is whether “the representation by a defendant’s lawyer was so ineffective that the proceedings were reduced to a farce, sham or mockery of justice.”
  • State v. Hartford 636 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Hartford 636 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Gannon 638 P.2d 206 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Gannon 638 P.2d 206 Ariz. 1981
    1542 , 59 L.Ed.2d 793 (1979), or whether the defendant received “reasonably effective representation, within the range of professional con *594 duct customarily expected of an attorney in a criminal case.” , (Gordon, J., specially concurring).
  • State v. Britson 636 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Britson 636 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1981
    we have not retreated from the rule that a conviction will be reversed because of ineffective assistance of counsel only if “the representation by a defendant’s lawyer was so ineffective that the proceedings were reduced to a farce, sham or mockery of justice.”
  • 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. Tison 633 P.2d 355 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Tison 633 P.2d 355 Ariz. 1981
    Recently, , , we recognized that many jurisdictions have discarded the farce, sham or mockery of justice test and have adopted the reasonably effective assistance of counsel standard.
  • State v. Salinas 631 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Salinas 631 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1981
    1542 , 59 L.Ed.2d 793 (1979), or whether counsel afforded defendant “reasonably effective representation, within the range of professional conduct customarily expected of an attorney in a criminal case.” , (Gordon, J., specially concurring).
  • State v. Moreno 625 P.2d 320 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Moreno 625 P.2d 320 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Marquez 618 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Marquez 618 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Alaffa 617 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Alaffa 617 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1980
    We find the circumstances of the case at bar, however, , where we noted: [I]t may be that this Court should reconsider the standard originally adopted in State v. Kruchten, supra, but we need not decide this issue now.