Cited by

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

326 citing documents.

State v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Granauro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Granauro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Lieser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Amador-Creane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Amador-Creane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 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. Lieser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
4 STATE v. CRUZ Decision of the Court ¶ 9 (2002).
State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 9 (2002) (“[I]neffective assistance of counsel claims are to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings .
State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Phillip Gregory Speers 361 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Because Speers was not permitted to raise such claims on direct appeal, they are not precluded by waiver for his failure to do so.
In Re Nicholas L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
er also argues that the superior court committed structural error by denying the continuance, because it deprived him of the assistance of counsel at the most critical stage of his case, and caused him to “entirely fail[] to subject the case to meaningful adversarial testing.” Webster concedes that ineffective assistance of counsel claims cannot be resolved on direct appeal, ¶ 9, but argues that his claim alleges a deprivation of counsel under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 (1984).
In Re Nicholas L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
While claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in adult criminal cases will not be addressed on direct appeal absent a prior proceeding in which the claims are pursued under Rule 32 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, ¶ 4 (2002), there is no corollary proceeding under the Rules of Procedure for Juvenile Court.
State v. Alonso Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Alonso Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 13-4033(B) (2008) (a defendant may not appeal a judgment or sentence entered pursuant to a plea agreement); ¶ 9, (a defendant may not present claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a direct appeal).
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cameron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cameron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
P. 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.”).
State v. Stuck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Stuck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Our supreme court has explained that the rule of waiver and preclusion applies to subsequent claims of ineffective assistance of counsel “where the ineffective assistance of counsel claims are raised, or could have been raised, in a Rule 32 post-conviction relief proceeding.” ¶ 4
State v. Pelayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Pelayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
But ineffective assistance of counsel claims must be brought under Rule 32 post-conviction relief proceedings, in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Arizona Supreme Court’s 3 ¶ 9
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kummer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
While recognizing such a claim is inappropriate for direct appeal, ¶ 9, (holding “ineffective assistance of counsel claims are to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings”), Kummer raises various related issues, such as counsel’s failure to test evidence, object to examination questions, and highlight allegedly inconsistent testimony, because “the collective cont
State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz 340 P.3d 1069 Ariz. 2014
State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Faccio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Faccio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz 340 P.3d 1069 Ariz. 2014
Opinion of the Court ¶10 Nevertheless, as the State commendably acknowledged at oral argument in this Court, this case presents unusual circumstances that compel a conclusion that Diaz did not waive his IAC claim.1 Although defendants have a constitutional right to appeal, Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 24, they may not present an IAC claim until the first PCR proceeding, ¶ 9
State v. Navarrette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Navarrette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dorsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dorsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Humelhans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Humelhans Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 9, (“[I]neffective assistance of counsel claims are to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings.
State v. Chavez-Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014