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. Carriger, 645 P.2d 816.

33 citing documents.

  • State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • In Re Mh2010-002637 263 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • In Re Mh2010-002637 263 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    the adversary process itself [is] presumptively unreliable”); , (holding "when counsel’s acts and omissions reduce his role to one approaching that of a neutral observer, a defendant is denied the effective assistance of counsel”), and Mental Health of K.G.F., 29 P.3d at 492, ¶ 35 (rejecting the Strickland standard in the context of civil commitment
  • State v. Spreitz 39 P.3d 525 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Spreitz 39 P.3d 525 Ariz. 2002
    P.2d 816 (1982) (where trial ineffectiveness claims were raised and addressed in the direct appeal, subsequent sentencing ineffectiveness claims were neither waived nor precluded).
  • State v. Webb 793 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Webb 793 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    While appellant is entitled to an attorney who is more than a neutral observer at sentencing, , appellant is not entitled to any particular attorney.
  • State v. Reasoner 742 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Reasoner 742 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    He argues that the submission, without any argument on the motion, rendered counsel a “neutral observer” , and was “tantamount to mute acceptance of an adverse ruling on a critical element of the case.” The state notes that appellant failed to allege or show any resulting prejudice due to the claimed shortcoming of counsel.
  • State v. D'Ambrosio 750 P.2d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Schrock 719 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Cummings 716 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Cummings 716 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Borbon 706 P.2d 718 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Borbon 706 P.2d 718 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. O'Connor 703 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. O'Connor 703 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Gerlaugh 698 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1985
    645 P.2d *457 816 (1982).
  • State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Nash 694 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Roscoe 700 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1984
    we held that the requirement of effective assistance of counsel was applicable to the sentencing phase of a capital case.
  • State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Carriger 692 P.2d 991 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Perkins 686 P.2d 1248 Ariz. 1984
    “The duty of defense counsel in representing his client does not terminate with a determination of guilt, but extends to the sentencing stage.” , 17 A.R.S.
  • State v. Jordan 672 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Jordan 672 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Thomas 652 P.2d 1380 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Thomas 652 P.2d 1380 Ariz. 1982