Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Nash, 694 P.2d 222.

406 citing documents.

State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (establishing the two-prong test, deficient performance by counsel and resulting prejudice, for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims); –98 (1985) (adopting both prongs of the Strickland test); Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 (1985) (“[T]he same two-part standard [is] applicable to ineffective-assistance claims arising out of the plea process.”).
State v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984)
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(holding when the State “alleges a prior conviction, it must prove two facts: (1) that the defendant in the present case and the one convicted in the prior case are the same individual, and (2) that there was in fact a prior conviction”).
State v. Vicera-Popoca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Vicera-Popoca Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984); –98 (1985).
State v. Nunez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Nunez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687- 88 (1984); (adopting Strickland)
State v. Schaeffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Schaeffer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
§ 13-701(E)(1), it need not find age as a mitigating factor, (acknowledging that “advanced age” could be a mitigating factor, but determining, under the facts of the case, that the defendant’s age (67) did “not warrant leniency”).
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)
State v. Brice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Brice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Gutierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Gutierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984)
State of Arizona v. Larry Dean Anderson 547 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Larry Dean Anderson 547 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2024
see also Anderson, 147 Ariz. at 351 (deciding whether counsel was ineffective and whether such ineffectiveness warranted withdrawal of a plea); –42 (1985) (deciding whether trial counsel was ineffective and whether such ineffectiveness warranted a new trial).
State v. Calandra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Calandra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984)
State v. Strover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Strover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(noting the State is not required “to negate 7 STATE v. STROVER Decision of the Court every conceivable hypothesis of innocence when guilt has been established by circumstantial evidence” (citation omitted)).
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
–98 (1985) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688–89 (1984)).
State v. Longhini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Longhini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)
State v. Melgoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Melgoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 10 (App. 2020) (“[A] lack of fingerprints or DNA is hardly determinative, as a conviction ‘may rest solely’ on circumstantial evidence.” ().
State v. Etienne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Etienne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
And because the State does not have “to negate every conceivable hypothesis of innocence when guilt has been established by circumstantial evidence,” (citation omitted), Etienne’s innocent explanations of the evidence do not require a contrary conclusion.
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
State v. Bonney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Bonney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)
State v. Simpson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Simpson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984); –98 (1985) (adopting the Strickland test).
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Vick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Vick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)
State v. Osborne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Osborne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)
State v. Estling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Estling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Id.; –98 (1985) (adopting the Strickland test).
State v. Lele Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Lele Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984)
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)