Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Dippre, 592 P.2d 1252.

60 citing documents.

State v. Hernandez 959 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Hernandez 959 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶37 , the Arizona Supreme Court stated that “[t]he proper procedure is to submit a separate verdict of ‘guilty’ as to each included offense, and only one verdict of ‘not guilty’ since the latter applies to all included offenses.” Later, , the Supreme Court found that the submission of four verdict forms, two for “guilty” and two for “not guilty,” is “clearly permissible” under rule 23.3, but not mandatory.
Matter of Wolfram 847 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1993
Matter of Wolfram 847 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1993
2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
State v. Belyeu 795 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Belyeu 795 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Rule 21.3(c), Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S.; 1 State v. *589 Dippre
State v. Draper 784 P.2d 259 Ariz. 1989
State v. Draper 784 P.2d 259 Ariz. 1989
(no prejudice resulted to defendant from his counsel’s failure to interview victim prior to trial); , (counsel’s failure to interview victims did not render his assistance ineffective because counsel “was prepared to
State v. Barnett 691 P.2d 683 Ariz. 1984
State v. Barnett 691 P.2d 683 Ariz. 1984
1638 , 71 L.Ed.2d 871 (1982)
State v. Moya 683 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Moya 683 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Since there was no objection to the forms of verdict, Rule 21.3(c), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.; , appellant can prevail only if he shows fundamental error.
State v. Grilz 666 P.2d 1059 Ariz. 1983
State v. Grilz 666 P.2d 1059 Ariz. 1983
1638 , 71 L.Ed.2d 871 (1982); , Ariz.R.Crim.P.
State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
State v. Zaragoza 659 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1983
1638 , 71 L.Ed.2d 871 (1982); , Ariz.R.Crim.P.
State v. Rybolt 650 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Rybolt 650 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Rule 21.3(c), Rules of Criminal Procedure
State v. Navarre 647 P.2d 178 Ariz. 1982
State v. Navarre 647 P.2d 178 Ariz. 1982
State v. Islas 647 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Islas 647 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. Gunter 643 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Gunter 643 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
It is well settled in Arizona that relief will be granted on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel “only if counsel was so inept that the proceedings were reduced to a mere farce, a sham or mockery of justice.”
State v. Worth 641 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Worth 641 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Gannon 638 P.2d 206 Ariz. 1981
State v. Gannon 638 P.2d 206 Ariz. 1981
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
State v. Tison 633 P.2d 355 Ariz. 1981
State v. Tison 633 P.2d 355 Ariz. 1981
State v. Flewellen, supra
State v. Salinas 631 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1981
State v. Salinas 631 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1981
State v. Vickers 633 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
State v. Vickers 633 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1981
State v. Moreno 625 P.2d 320 Ariz. 1981
State v. Moreno 625 P.2d 320 Ariz. 1981
Appellant would also have us reject the current standard by which we weigh claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; that is, whether the proceedings were rendered a sham or mockery of justice, , , cert.
State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1980
State v. Flewellen 621 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1980
State v. Flewellen 621 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1980
State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1980
State v. Marquez 618 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1980
State v. Marquez 618 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1980
Although we have not retreated from the rule that a defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel will be upheld “only if counsel was so inept that the proceedings were reduced to a mere farce, a sham or mockery of justice,” , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the farce and mockery standard has become obsolete and that a “reasonably competent and effective representation is a more apt and accurate description of the quality of legal assistance required under the Sixth Ame
State v. Alaffa 617 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1980
State v. Alaffa 617 P.2d 525 Ariz. 1980
State v. Laughter 625 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Laughter 625 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Taylor 622 P.2d 483 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980