DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

326 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Jill Irene Paris-Sheldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Jill Irene Paris-Sheldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State v. Bennett 146 P.3d 63 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. Bennett 146 P.3d 63 Ariz. 2006
    ¶14 As a general rule, when “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.” ¶ 4
  • State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    -3, ¶¶ 4-9 , -27 (2002), which requires that claims of ineffective assistance at trial be brought in post-conviction relief proceedings pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.
  • State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. Ellison 140 P.3d 899 Ariz. 2006
    While specific ineffective assistance of counsel claims cannot be raised on direct appeal, ¶ 9, Ellison is arguing that defense attorneys categorically cannot effectively defend if aggravators are not identified before trial, and we reject this argument.
  • In Re Gina Manny Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • In Re Gina Manny Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    (claims for ineffective assistance of counsel arising from adult criminal conviction must be raised in post-conviction proceeding, not on appeal).
  • State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
  • State v. Glassel 116 P.3d 1193 Ariz. 2005
    ¶ 9, (holding that any ineffective assistance of counsel claims must be brought in Rule 32 post-conviction proceedings).
  • State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
  • State v. Anderson 111 P.3d 369 Ariz. 2005
  • State v. Walker 95 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Torres 93 P.3d 1056 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Torres 93 P.3d 1056 Ariz. 2004
    ¶ 9, (“[I]neffective assistance of counsel claims are to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings.”).
  • Glaze v. Larsen 83 P.3d 26 Ariz. 2004
  • Glaze v. Larsen 83 P.3d 26 Ariz. 2004
    See State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1, 3 ¶ 9, (holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims must be raised in Rule 32 proceedings, not in a direct appeal).
  • State v. Torres 75 P.3d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Torres 75 P.3d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    -3, ¶¶ 5-9, -27 (2002) (reviewing case law and holding that ineffective assistance claims must be brought in a petition for post-conviction relief prior to appellate consideration).
  • State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Tucker 68 P.3d 110 Ariz. 2003
    at 482-83 , 917 P.2d at 211 -12 ( , ); ¶ 9 , (“We reiterate that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are to be brought during Rule 32 proceedings.
  • Glaze v. Larsen 55 P.3d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • Stewart v. Smith 46 P.3d 1067 Ariz. 2002
  • Stewart v. Smith 46 P.3d 1067 Ariz. 2002
    See State v. Spreitz, 202 P.3d 525 (2002).