Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gerlaugh, 698 P.2d 694.

103 citing documents.

State v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 8 (App. 2018) (“[D]isagreements about trial strategy will not support an ineffective 5 STATE v. HAMILTON Decision of the Court assistance claim if the challenged conduct has some reasoned basis, even if the tactics counsel adopts are unsuccessful.” (citation modified)); (“Disagreements in trial strategy will not support a claim of ineffective assistance so long as the challenged conduct has some reasoned basis.”).
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
A strategic decision by counsel generally will not support an ineffective assistance claim unless the decision has no “reasoned basis.”
State v. Tarr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Tarr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
A strategic decision by counsel will not support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim unless the decision has no “reasoned basis.” see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690– 91 (1984) (“[S]trategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable.”).
State v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Cramer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“Disagreements in trial strategy will not support a claim of ineffective assistance so long as the challenged conduct has some reasoned basis.” (citations omitted)); see also Pandeli, 242 Ariz. at 182-83, ¶¶ 13-16 (holding that defense counsel was not ineffective by forgoing cross-examination of the State
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to J.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to J.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Royce C., 252 Ariz. at 136, 138, ¶¶ 20, 25–26; (noting that counsel’s decisions about what evidence and witnesses to present at trial, particularly the cumulative evidence, is a strategic choice that will not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel).
State v. Mello Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Mello Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Because we presume "counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance," Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, "[d]isagreements in trial strategy will not support a claim of ineffective assistance so long as the challenged conduct has some reasoned basis,"
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Kashkool Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Kashkool Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“Disagreements in trial strategy will not support a claim of ineffective 2 STATE v. KASHKOOL Decision of the Court assistance so long as the challenged conduct has some reasoned basis.”
State v. Linville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Linville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Stanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Stanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“Disagreements in trial strategy will not support a claim of ineffective assistance so long as the challenged conduct has some reasoned basis.”
State of Arizona v. Ronald Bruce Bigger 492 P.3d 1020 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Ronald Bruce Bigger 492 P.3d 1020 Ariz. 2021
See, (reasoning that “[d]isagreements in trial strategy will not support a claim of ineffective assistance so long as the challenged conduct has some reasoned basis” (emphasis added)); Pandeli, 242 Ariz. at 183 ¶ 21 (rejecting IAC claim based on failure to cross-examine because it “was a strategic decision that
State v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
disapproved of on other grounds, ¶ 25 (2001); 461 (1985) (analyzing attorney’s “failure to argue for petitioner’s alleged intoxication” as trial strategy); (attorney’s decision “as to what witnesses should be called .
State v. Varela 425 P.3d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Varela 425 P.3d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
quoting State v. Gerlaugh , , 455
State v. Beasley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Beasley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In Re Nicholas L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In Re Nicholas L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)).
State of Arizona v. Vaughn Miles Denz 306 P.3d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Vaughn Miles Denz 306 P.3d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Thus, disagreements about trial strategy will not support an ineffective assistance claim if “the challenged conduct has some reasoned basis,” even if the tactics counsel adopts are unsuccessful.
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
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
Although youth “is entitled to great weight as a mitigating circumstance,” - 35 - we also consider the defendant’s maturity, judgment, intelligence, and involvement in the crime
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
See, -32 , -50 (1996) (age sixteen not mitigating factor); , (age twenty not mitigating factor); -61 , -06 (1985) (age nineteen not mitigating factor).
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
State v. Jackson 918 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1996
State v. Medrano 914 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1996
State v. Medrano 914 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
Interference with counsel’s strategy In dealing with a defendant’s request that counsel not present certain mitigating evidence, this court has stated that “an attorney’s decisions concerning representation can properly be influenced by his client’s wishes.” , (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691 , 104 S.Ct.
State v. Ray 912 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Ray 912 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
State v. Bolton 896 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1995
-62 , -07 (1985) (self-serving testimony insufficient to prove intoxication).
State v. Rosas 904 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995