Cited by

P. 33.2(a)(3) (precluding petitioner from obtaining relief on a constitutional claim waived in a previous PCR proceeding); ¶ 4 (2002) (precluding successive IAC claims when they were, or could have been, raised in a prior PCR proceeding); see also Ariz. R. Crim.

¶ 9 (2002) (“[I]neffective assistance of counsel claims are to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings.

will not be addressed by appellate courts regardless of merit.” ¶ 9 (2002).

that a defendant may bring ineffective assistance of counsel claims only in a Rule 32 post-conviction proceeding—not before trial, at trial, or on direct review.”); ¶ 9 (2002) (“[I]neffective assistance 4 STATE v. CHAMBERS Decision of the Court of counsel claims are to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings.

will not be addressed by appellate courts regardless of merit.” ¶ 9 (2002).

¶ 9 (2002) (stating that ineffective assistance 4 STATE v. MULLENER Decision of the Court of counsel claims "improvidently raised in a direct appeal .

Thomas v. Rayes, 214 Ariz 411, 414, ¶ 16 (2007) ( ¶ 9 (2002)).

¶ 9 (2002) (reiterating that “the appellate court simply will not address” ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal, as such claims “are to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings”).

will not be addressed by appellate courts regardless of merit.” ¶ 9 (2002).

¶ 16 (2007) ( ¶ 9 (2002)).

will not be addressed by appellate courts regardless of merit.” ¶ 9 (2002).