Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Borbon, 706 P.2d 718.

109 citing documents.

State v. Sovero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Baker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramirez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(explaining a trial court need not conduct an evidentiary hearing based on mere generalizations and unsubstantiated claims of ineffective assistance of counsel).
State v. Soto-Portillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Soto-Portillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Thus, although a defendant is not required to establish proof by a preponderance through his petition alone, in order to state a colorable claim, he “must raise some factors that demonstrate that the attorney’s representation fell below the prevailing objective standards.” -400 (1985).
State v. Osuna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Osuna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(holding counsel not ineffective “for failing to make an essentially futile request”); (holding failure to engage in futile act not ineffective assistance of counsel).
State v. Carpenter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Carpenter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Because Carpenter did not provide affidavits from the witnesses containing the testimony they would have provided, Carpenter has failed to present a colorable claim.1
State v. Piedra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Piedra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Doty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Doty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
P. 32.5; (holding unsubstantiated claim witness would give favorable testimony does not compel evidentiary hearing).
State v. Settle II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Settle II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hrbenic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hrbenic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Amy Kay Gustafson 311 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Amy Kay Gustafson 311 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Likewise, because the victim here did not suffer a heart attack or request medical care after the incident does not mean the jury could not find “under the circumstances in which it [was] used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used” the stun gun was “readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.” § 13-105(12); (tire iron 10 constituted dangerous instrument even though it was impossible for defendant to shatter the bulletproof glass door he hit with the iron; defendant hit
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez 278 P.3d 1276 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez 278 P.3d 1276 Ariz. 2012
Thus, when there are no material facts in dispute and the only issue is the legal consequence of undisputed material facts, the superior court need not hold an evidentiary hearing.2 (“Rule 32 does not require the trial court to conduct evidentiary hearings based on mere generalizations and unsubstantiated claims that people exist who would give favorable testimony.”).
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
State v. KUHS 224 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2010
at 162, 800 P.2d at 1270 (quoting State v. Borbon, 146 Ariz. 392, 395, ); see also Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
State v. Bowers 966 P.2d 1023 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Bowers 966 P.2d 1023 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
State v. Spears 908 P.2d 1062 Ariz. 1996
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
But in order to be colorable, the petition “must raise some factors that demonstrate that the attorney’s representation fell below the prevailing objective standards.”
State v. Medrano 844 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1992
State v. Medrano 844 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1992
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
State v. Amaya-Ruiz 800 P.2d 1260 Ariz. 1990
Reasonable grounds exist when “there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the defendant is not able to understand the nature of the proceeding against him and to assist in his defense.”
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989