Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Spreitz, 39 P.3d 525.

326 citing documents.

State v. Boyd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Monyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Monyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ackerman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ackerman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Wade Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Braxton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Braxton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
At trial, Department of Corrections Officer Crum testified the prosecutor showed him the 1 Because ineffective assistance of counsel claims cannot be raised on direct appeal, ¶ 9 (2002), we address these claims infra, as part of Braxton’s petition for post-conviction relief.
State v. Aulbach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Aulbach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Francois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Francois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Samuels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Samuels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 9 (2002) (“[I]neffective assistance of counsel claims are to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings .
State v. Pino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Pino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Boozer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Boozer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stenglein Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Stenglein Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Shockey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Shockey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich Ariz. 2017
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich Ariz. 2017
¶ 9 (2002) (requiring IAC claims to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings).
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 9 (2002) (“[Ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims] improvidently raised in a direct appeal, henceforth, will not be addressed by appellate courts regardless of merit.”); State ex rel.
State v. Noble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Noble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 32.2(a), 32.4(a); ¶ 4 (2002) ("Our basic rule is that where ineffective assistance of counsel claims are raised, or could have been raised, in a Rule 32 post-conviction relief proceeding, subsequent claims of ineffective assistance will be deemed waived and precluded."
State v. Hiles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hiles Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cryer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cryer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Yazzie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Yazzie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sherod Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Sherod Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 23 (App. 2007) ("[W]hen 'ineffective assistance of counsel claims are raised, or could have been raised, in a Rule 32 post-conviction proceeding, subsequent claims of ineffective assistance will be deemed waived and precluded.'") ( ¶ 4 (2002)).
State v. Jorgensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jorgensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017