Cited by

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

326 citing documents.

State v. Chavez-Molina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Morales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cortez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cortez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Melville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 9, (“[I]neffective assistance of counsel claims are to be brought under Rule 32 proceedings .
State v. Morales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sutton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Sutton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Powels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Powels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 9, ("ineffective assistance of counsel claims are to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings").
State v. Loff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Knight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Loff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Israel Joseph Naranjo 321 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2014
State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Grossman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Grossman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Valdespino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Valdespino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 9, (ineffective assistance of counsel claims to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings and will not be addressed on direct appeal).
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
And any inadequacy in the voir dire should be considered in the context of an ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claim, ¶ 9, (requiring “ineffective assistance of counsel claims .
State of Arizona v. Richard J. Glassel 312 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Richard J. Glassel 312 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2013
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez 278 P.3d 1276 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez 278 P.3d 1276 Ariz. 2012
“A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when he presents a colorable claim, that is a claim which, if defendant’s allegations are true, might have changed the outcome.” State v. Watton, 164 Ariz. 323, 328, ¶ 5
State v. Regenold 249 P.3d 337 Ariz. 2011
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
State v. Snelling 236 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2010
¶ 9, 39 (holding that “ineffective assistance of counsel claims are to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings”).
State v. Allen 220 P.3d 245 Ariz. 2009
State v. Allen 220 P.3d 245 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
E.g., State v. Spreitz (Spreitz II), ¶ 9
State v. SANG LE 212 P.3d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. SANG LE 212 P.3d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
will not be addressed by appellate courts regardless of merit.” , 39 * see also State ex rel.
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
¶ 9, (holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings).
State v. Peralta 212 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Peralta 212 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
that a defendant may bring ineffective assistance of counsel claims only in a Rule 32 post-conviction proeeeding-not before trial, at trial, or on direct review.”); ¶ 9 , (“[Ijneffective assistance of counsel claims are to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings.
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
¶ 9, (“[I]neffective assistance of counsel claims are to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings.”).
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 153 P.3d 1040 Ariz. 2007
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 153 P.3d 1040 Ariz. 2007
And, in State v. Spreitz, we held unequivocally that “ineffective assistance of 9 counsel claims are to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings.” ¶ 9