Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Anderson, 710 P.2d 456.

28 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Michael Eugene Traverso Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. Michael Eugene Traverso Ariz. 2025
Regardless, “[e]ffective assistance of counsel is just as necessary at the plea bargaining stage as at trial.” Anderson, 257 Ariz. at 233 ¶ 27 (); see also Lafler, 566 U.S. at 162 (“During plea negotiations defendants are ‘entitled to the effective assistance of competent counsel.’” (quoting McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 (1970))).
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
C. Colorability ¶27 “Effective assistance of counsel is just as necessary at the plea bargaining stage as at trial.”
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(citing Hudson v. United States, 272 U.S. 451, 455, 47 S. Ct. 127, 129, 71 L. Ed. 347 (1926)).
State v. Chairez 327 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State v. Chairez 327 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Cesar Francisco Rubiano 150 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Cesar Francisco Rubiano 150 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
P., on ground that trial counsel had been ineffective by inducing defendant to enter guilty plea); -52, -62 (1985) (same); Ariz. R. Crim.
State v. Donald 10 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Donald 10 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See, ¶¶ 23-24 , -52 , -62 (1985).
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
Washington v. Superior Court 881 P.2d 1196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Washington v. Superior Court 881 P.2d 1196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
f acceptance of the plea, “there is no significant difference between a plea of guilty with a protestation of innocence [i.e., an Alford plea] and a plea of no contest.” , (finding no prejudice resulting from trial court’s designating and accepting as a no contest plea one that was intended as an Alford plea)
State v. Quick 868 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Quick 868 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Appellant concedes that the entry of a plea waives all non-jurisdietional defects, , but, , he claims that this rule does not apply to a claim of ineffective assistance in entering a plea.
State v. Diaz 835 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Diaz 835 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Under this standard, “a motion to withdraw a plea should be liberally exercised in favor of permitting withdrawal where there is any showing justice will be served thereby.”
State v. Howard 815 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Howard 815 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Romers 766 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Romers 766 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Mott 722 P.2d 247 Ariz. 1986
State v. Mott 722 P.2d 247 Ariz. 1986
applies to the facts in this case.
State v. Mott 722 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Mott 722 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
which mandates reversal.