Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Nirschel, 745 P.2d 953.

56 citing documents.

State v. Rhone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Rhone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(failure to argue a claim constitutes waiver).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶8 While the decision of whether to testify at trial is “exclusively the province of the accused,” the defendant waives that right if he does not make “his desire to testify known at trial, not as an afterthought,”
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
But “disagreements in trial strategy will not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, provided the challenged conduct had some reasoned basis.” ().
State v. Garcia Del Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Garcia Del Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶7 Garcia Del Castillo argues his trial counsel “unilaterally overrode [his] request to testify.” The decision of whether to testify at trial is “exclusively the province of the accused.” (); see Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 24.
State v. Haver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Haver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(failure to argue a claim generally constitutes waiver).
State of Arizona v. Darrel Peter Pandeli 394 P.3d 2 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Darrel Peter Pandeli 394 P.3d 2 Ariz. 2017
Counsel clearly had, at a minimum, “some reasoned basis,” for forgoing cross-examination of Dr. Bayless.
Emerson v. O'connor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Emerson v. O'connor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See ARCAP 13(a)(7); (appellant’s contention must be supported by legal authority in the opening brief).
Emerson v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Emerson v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(emphasizing that each contention by the appellant must be supported by legal authority in the opening brief).
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“[D]isagreements in trial strategy will not support a claim of [IAC], provided the challenged conduct has some reasoned basis.”
State v. Hrbenic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hrbenic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown 310 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown 310 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(“Failure to argue a claim constitutes abandonment and waiver of that issue.”).
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
Beyond these matters, most trial decisions are trial strategy resting with counsel.” (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
a’s argument on appeal — , — is not the argument Barraza made to the trial court that additional language should have been inserted telling the jury that “forcible rape is deadly physical force.” Therefore, the State argues that Barraza has both abandoned the argument she made in the trial court, , (failure to provide argument on appeal constitutes abandonment and waiver of that issue), and waived her Grannis argument on appeal because she failed to make it in the trial court.
David G. v. Pollard Ex Rel. County of Pima 86 P.3d 364 Ariz. 2004
David G. v. Pollard Ex Rel. County of Pima 86 P.3d 364 Ariz. 2004
(Defendant waived issue “by failing to sufficiently argue this claim on appeal.”); (“Failure to argue a claim constitutes abandonment and waiver of that issue.” ( )).
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
to support his argument.
State v. Vickers 885 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1994
State v. Vickers 885 P.2d 1086 Ariz. 1994
As such, we have repeatedly acknowledged that “disagreements in trial strategy will not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, provided the challenged conduct had some reasoned basis.”
State v. Paredes 887 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Paredes 887 P.2d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Woolbright 874 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Woolbright 874 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State v. Serna 860 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Serna 860 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Krantz 848 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Krantz 848 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
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
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Fulminante 778 P.2d 602 Ariz. 1989
State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
Rule 31.13 c(1)(iv), Ariz.R.Crim.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by