Cited by

A defense attorney’s decision not to call a witness to testify will thus support an IAC claim only if the decision had no reasoned basis but, instead, resulted from “ineptitude, inexperience or lack of preparation[.]”

the result of ‘ineptitude, inexperience or lack of preparation.’” Denz, 232 Ariz. at 444 ¶ 7 ().

“To overcome this presumption, [Vigorito is] required to show counsel’s decisions were not tactical in nature, but were instead the result of ‘ineptitude, inexperience or lack of preparation.’” ¶ 7 (App. 2013) ().

Hardy has not met his burden of establishing that trial counsel’s decision not to call certain witnesses, engage a handwriting expert, or move to suppress the letters was “not a tactical one but, rather, revealed ineptitude, inexperience or lack of preparation.” ¶ 10 (2021) ().

With just the record from the trial, we lack evidence to show that counsels’ decision was tactical rather than the result of “ineptitude, inexperience or lack of preparation.”

(“There are a number of reasons why an attorney may choose not to call a witness, including a concern that the witness may perjure himself or that his participation in the defense may harm the defendant more than his testimony .

“Whether or not to call a witness is a strategic decision” that will not support an ineffective assistance claim unless the defendant can show the decision “was not a tactical one but, rather, revealed ineptitude, inexperience or lack of preparation.”

And a reviewing court presumes counsel acted properly unless the defendant can show that “counsel’s decision was not a tactical one but, rather, revealed ineptitude, inexperience or lack of preparation.” –30 (1991) (There is a strong presumption that defense counsel provided effective assistance.).

A defendant proves a deficiency if he shows “counsel’s decision was not a tactical one but, rather, revealed ineptitude, inexperience or lack of preparation.”

See, (explaining averments in the petitioner’s “self-serving affidavit” did not alone provide a “sufficient factual basis” to support his IAC claim); Campos did not raise an IAC claim based on trial counsel’s failure to object to the superior court’s imposition

4 STATE V. BIGGER Opinion of the Court a defendant can show that “counsel’s decision was not a tactical one but, rather, revealed ineptitude, inexperience or lack of preparation.” – 30 (1991) (noting that a strong presumption exists that defense counsel provided effective assistance).

quoting State v. Goswick , , 586

See, (finding, in the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, no sufficient factual basis to support an allegation based on the self-serving affidavit of the defendant); see also Toro v. Fairman, 940 F.2d 1065, 1068 (7th Cir. 1991) (holding that the defendant’s self-serving aff

See, (in the context of an IAC claim, finding no sufficient factual basis to support an allegation based on a self-serving affidavit of the defendant); see also Toro v. Fairman, 940 F.2d 1065, 1068 (7th Cir. 1991) (defendant’s self-serving memorandum regarding plea not sufficient alone to show prejudice).

See, (finding, in the context of an IAC claim, no sufficient factual basis to support an allegation based on the self-serving affidavit of the defendant); see also Toro v. Fairman, 940 F.2d 1065, 1068 (7th Cir. 1991) (holding that the defendant’s self-serving affidavit regarding a plea offer

(no IAC if counsel’s decision had a reasoned basis rather than the result of “ineptitude, inexperience, or lack of preparation”).

(in context of an IAC claim, there is no sufficient factual basis to support an allegation based on defendant’s self-serving affidavit when other affidavits from third-parties are not presented).

A defendant can overcome this presumption by showing that counsel’s decisions were not tactical or strategic in nature, but were instead the result of “ineptitude, inexperience, or lack of preparation.”

Thus, he is “required to show counsel’s decisions were not tactical in nature, but were instead the result of ‘ineptitude, inexperience or lack of preparation.’” Denz, 306 P.3d at 101

Trial counsel is presumed to have acted properly unless a petitioner can show the attorney’s decisions were not tactical, “but, rather, revealed ineptitude, inexperience or lack of preparation.”

To overcome this presumption, Denz was required to show counsel’s decisions were not tactical in nature, but were instead the result of “ineptitude, inexperience or lack of preparation.”

In State v. Goswick, the Arizona Supreme Court defined substantial evidence as “such proof as a reasonable mind would employ to support the conclusion reached.”