DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Santanna, 735 P.2d 757.

38 citing documents.

  • State v. Stanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Stanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    The “[p]roof of ineffectiveness must be to a demonstrable reality rather than a matter of speculation.” see also Ariz. R. Crim.
  • State v. Ruzzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Ruzzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    (“Proof of ineffectiveness must be to a demonstrable reality rather than a matter of speculation.”) (citation omitted).
  • State v. Calvillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Calvillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶10 Nor did Petitioner “specify the acts or omissions of counsel that allegedly constitute ineffective assistance [of counsel].” Donald, 198 Ariz. at 413, ¶ 17 (To establish a colorable claim, petitioner must “present more than a conclusory assertion” and “should support [his] allegations by sworn statements or provide a satisfactory explanation of their absence.”).
  • State v. Nye Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Nye Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    To survive summary dismissal of such a claim, a defendant must raise in his or her petition “some factors that demonstrate that the attorney’s representation fell below the prevailing objective standards.” (recognizing that “[p]roof of ineffectiveness must be to a demonstrable reality rather than a matter of speculation” and courts are required to give effect to a presumption of competence absent contrary evidence in an “unsupplemented record”).
  • State v. Mendoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Mendoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-886, 692-93 (1984) (a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a defendant to show counsel’s performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and the deficient performance was prejudicia.); (“Proof of ineffectiveness must be to a demonstrable reality rather than a matter of speculation.”).
  • State v. Beasley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Beasley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶10 Accordingly, a defendant’s petition must raise “some factors that demonstrate that the attorney’s representation fell below the prevailing objective standards.” (“[p]roof of ineffectiveness must be to a demonstrable reality rather than a matter of speculation;” courts required to give effect to presumption of competence absent contrary evidence in “unsupplemented record”).
  • State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Doty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Doty Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    that counsel’s actions were choices made for strategic or tactical reasons.”
  • State v. Crandall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Crandall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    -59, ¶¶ 13-14, -02 (App. 2007).
  • State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    (applying Arizona Rules of Evidence and stating that specific prior violent acts admissible if known to defendant to show defendant’s state of mind); ¶¶ 14-16 , (specific act evidence is admissible if defendant was aware
  • State v. Roscoe 897 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • State v. Roscoe 897 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
    State v. Cano; M. Udall, J. Livermore, P. Escher and G. Mcllvain, Arizona Practice Law of Evidence § 83 (3rd ed. 1991).
  • 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
    citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 688 , 104 S.Ct.
  • 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
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Carver 771 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Walton 769 P.2d 1017 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Valdez 770 P.2d 313 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Valdez 770 P.2d 313 Ariz. 1989
    *15 149 , (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Cano 743 P.2d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Cano 743 P.2d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • State v. Woodall 744 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Woodall 744 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987