Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lee, 689 P.2d 153.

176 citing documents.

Daniel Y. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 77 P.3d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Daniel Y. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 77 P.3d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
at 547 , 944 P.2d at 62 (citing *262 , ).
State v. Torres 75 P.3d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Torres 75 P.3d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
The defendant is entitled not merely to counsel, but to adequate legal representation: “A criminal defendant is entitled to full and fair representation within the bounds of the law.” , see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 , 104 S.Ct.
State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
(counsel alone makes tactical decisions about conduct of trial); , (decisions on trial tactics rest with counsel).
State v. Moody 968 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1998
State v. Moody 968 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1998
State v. Ysea 956 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1998
State v. Ysea 956 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1998
overruled on other grounds *504
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
State v. Fillmore 927 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Fillmore 927 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Levato 924 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1996
State v. Levato 924 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1996
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JV-511576 925 P.2d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JV-511576 925 P.2d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(adopting Strickland test).
State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
216-17 , 159-60 (1984), this court held that: .
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 910 P.2d 635 Ariz. 1996
9 and ABA guidelines for the proposition that “the decision as to what witnesses to call is a tactical, strategic decision” resting with counsel, while the client chooses only the overall goal, such as whether to argue against the death penalty.
State v. Herrera 905 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Herrera 905 P.2d 1377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Vickers 885 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1994
State v. Vickers 885 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1994
2689 , 86 L.Ed.2d 706 (1985); , see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct.
Matter of Arrick 882 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1994
Matter of Arrick 882 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1994
The court granting such relief must necessarily have found a reasonable probability that “but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” , (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct.
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
State v. Salazar 844 P.2d 566 Ariz. 1992
2689 , 86 L.Ed.2d 706 (1985)
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
To establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, defendant must prove (1) that his counsel lacked minimal competence as determined by prevailing professional norms, , and (2) that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defense
State v. Engram 831 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Engram 831 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Valdez 806 P.2d 1376 Ariz. 1991
State v. Valdez 806 P.2d 1376 Ariz. 1991
State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Lucas 794 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
143 Ariz. at 398 , 694 P.2d at 228
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
State v. Vaughn 786 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Vaughn 786 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
2689 , 86 L.Ed.2d 706 (1985)
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
the Arizona Supreme Court elaborated on the burden of proof for showing prejudice by defining “reasonable probability” as “less than ‘more likely than not’ but more than a mere possibility.” In sum, a defendant’s burden in general, and appellant’s burden in this case, is more rigorous
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
(quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 698 , 104 S.Ct.