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. Gerlaugh, 698 P.2d 694.

103 citing documents.

  • State v. Rosas 904 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
    In this regard, he must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, , that (1) counsel lacked minimal competence as determined by prevailing professional norms, and (2) counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defense.
  • State v. Andersen 868 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Andersen 868 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
    3047 , 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990); -61 , -06 (1985) (age 19 not a mitigating factor).
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
    3047 , 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990); -61 , -06 (1985) (age 19 not a mitigating factor); , (age 20 not a mitigating factor); State v. Gillies (Gillies I), , (age 20 not a mitigating factor).
  • State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
    Vickers, 129 Ariz. at 515-16 , 633 P.2d at 324-25 ; Richmond, 114 Ariz. at 197-98 , 560 P.2d at 52-53 .
  • State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
    Walton, 159 Ariz. at 589 , 769 P.2d at 1035 ; , Gillies, 142 Ariz. at 571 , 691 P.2d at 662 .
  • State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. White 815 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Ross 804 P.2d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Ross 804 P.2d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    (when defendant denied counsel at a critical stage of trial, prejudice “presumed” to support ineffective counsel claim); , (generally, if judge responds to issues of fact and law in absence of defendant and his counsel, reversible error is
  • State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Robinson 796 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1990
    49 , 107 L.Ed.2d 18 (1989) (age 20 not a mitigating factor); , (age 19 not a mitigating factor); , (age 20 not a mitigating factor); State v. Gillies (Gillies I), , (age 20 not a mitigating factor).
  • State v. Crane 799 P.2d 1380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Crane 799 P.2d 1380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Marlow 786 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Marlow 786 P.2d 395 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Shuler 780 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Shuler 780 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Waitkus 778 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Waitkus 778 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Rendon 776 P.2d 353 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Rendon 776 P.2d 353 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Rockwell 775 P.2d 1069 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Rockwell 775 P.2d 1069 Ariz. 1989
    (defendant was mature for his age and leader in the commission of the murder); , cert.
  • State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Prince 772 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
    Richmond I, 114 Ariz. at 197-98 , 560 P.2d at 52-53 .
  • State v. Adams 765 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Adams 765 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1988
    156 Ariz. at 90 , 750 P.2d at 33
  • State v. Adams 750 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Adams 750 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Nirschel 745 P.2d 953 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Nirschel 745 P.2d 953 Ariz. 1987
  • 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
    the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
  • State v. Dogan 724 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Garcia 731 P.2d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Dogan 724 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    “There is no constitutional requirement that a judicial decision announcing new constitutional guidelines be applied prospectively or retroactively.” , , cert.
  • State v. Garcia 731 P.2d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    3 RETROACTIVITY “There is no constitutional requirement that a judicial decision announcing new constitutional guidelines be applied prospectively or retroactively.” , citing Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 629 , 85 S.Ct.
  • State v. Stone 728 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Stone 728 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    our supreme court declared that the standard of effective assistance of counsel for cases pending on appeal as of January 9, 1985, , cert.
  • State v. Anderson 710 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1985