Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Williams, 593 P.2d 896.
- State v. Watkins 611 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1980
-
State v. Watkins
611 P.2d 923
Ariz. 1980
Although virtually all of the cases are in agreement in requiring that the provisions of probation be formally documented, , State v. Heasley, 23 Ariz.App.
- State v. Byers 613 P.2d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- State v. Byers 613 P.2d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- State v. Austin 603 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Austin 603 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1979
- State v. Workman 600 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
-
State v. Workman
600 P.2d 1133
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
the Supreme Court recently reviewed this standard, noted that it has been rejected by many jurisdictions, but declined to decide whether a new standard should be adopted, because it found that the appellant in that case had been provided with effective counsel under even the most stringent tests
- State v. Kelly 597 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1979
-
State v. Kelly
597 P.2d 177
Ariz. 1979
we do not believe Kelly was denied effective assistance of counsel.
- State v. Longoria 596 P.2d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- State v. Longoria 596 P.2d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- State v. Dippre 592 P.2d 1252 Ariz. 1979
-
State v. Dippre
592 P.2d 1252
Ariz. 1979
See State v. Williams, 122 Ariz. -