Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Spreitz, 39 P.3d 525.
- State v. Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
State v. Stewart
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 9 (2000) (“[I]neffective assistance of counsel claims are to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings.
- State v. Price Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
State v. Price
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 9, (“[W]e reiterate that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings.
- State v. Cote Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Cote Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Salinas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
State v. Salinas
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 20 (2007); ¶ 9 (2002).
- State v. Bolden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
State v. Bolden
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
32.2(a); ¶ 4, (“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.”) (emphasis omitted).
- State v. Ottar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Ottar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. King Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State of Arizona v. Demirus Ananda Koepke 377 P.3d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
- State of Arizona v. Demirus Ananda Koepke 377 P.3d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
- State v. Kegler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
State v. Kegler
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 9 (2002); (deciding what witness to call is a strategic decision and the power to decide questions of trial strategy resides with counsel).
- State v. Flores Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
State v. Flores
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 9, (ineffective assistance of counsel claims must be raised in Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 proceedings).
- State v. Kirby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Kirby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
State v. Horton
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 9, 5 However, we address his other arguments as follows: 4 Appellant’s right index finger had been bent back over his thumb during the altercation, and he was treated for a possible broken hand.
- State v. Vanleer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
State v. Vanleer
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 9, (ineffective assistance of counsel claims must be raised in Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 proceedings).
- State v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Hernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Juarez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Dwyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
State v. Dwyer
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 9 (2002) (“[I]neffective assistance of counsel claims are to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings .
- State v. Mutuberria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
State v. Mutuberria
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 9 (2002) (“[I]neffective assistance of counsel claims are to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings .
- State v. Bibbins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Gleba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Gleba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
State v. Bibbins
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 9 (2002) (holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims will not be considered on direct appeal and, instead, must be presented in Rule 32 proceedings).
- State v. Gurule Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Gurule Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State of Arizona v. Darren Irving Goldin 365 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
-
State of Arizona v. Darren Irving Goldin
365 P.3d 364
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
¶¶ 23-24, -53 (App. 2007); (“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. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015