Cited by

Because Aleman's contentions are not sufficiently developed, she has waived her claims on appeal.1 ¶ 101, n.9 (2004) ("Merely mentioning an argument is not enough: 'In Arizona, opening briefs must present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth an appellant's position on the issues raised.

See ARCAP 13(a)(7); ¶ 101 n.9 (2004) (explaining opening briefs that fail to present significant arguments supported by authority usually constitutes abandonment and waiver of that argument).

Sec., ¶ 14 n.6 (App. 2011) (recognizing that the failure to develop an argument on appeal results in abandonment and waiver of the issue) ( n.9, ¶ 101 (2004)).

“We review a trial court’s refusal to give a jury instruction for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 197 (2004).

the jury selected was not fair, unbiased, and impartial.” ¶ 95 (2004); see also Escalante-Orozco, 241 Ariz. at 271 ¶¶ 33–34 (determining that despite initial time limit, trial court posed appropriate follow-up questions to jurors and defendant failed to demonstrate that the seated jury “was not fair, unbiased, and impartial”).

at 271 ¶ 33 (internal quotation marks omitted) ( ¶ 95 (2004)).

Prosecutorial misconduct warrants reversal only if “(1) misconduct is indeed present; and (2) a reasonable likelihood exists that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying [the] defendant a fair trial.” ¶ 145 (2004) (citation omitted).

¶20 "We review a trial court's decisions regarding the use and content of jury questionnaires for abuse of discretion," State v. Naranjo , , 241 ¶ 24, , 406 (2014), and "will not disturb the trial court's selection of the jury in the absence of a showing that a jury of fair and impartial jurors was not chosen," State v. Moody , , 451 ¶ 93, , 1146 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Walden , , 607, , 986 (1995) ).

n.9, ¶ 101 (2004) (finding waiver because the defendant “[m]erely mention[ed] an argument”); ¶ 24 (App. 2015) (finding an argument waived because the defendant “d[id] not present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth his position” (internal quotation

Prosecutorial misconduct warrants reversal only if “(1) misconduct is indeed present[,] and (2) a reasonable likelihood exists that the misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying defendant a fair trial.” ¶ 145 (2004) (citation omitted).

" State v. Moody , , ¶ 22, quoting Nalbandian v. Superior Court , , 130, , 981 (App. 1989).

n.9, ¶ 101 (2004) (“Merely mentioning an argument is not enough[.]”).

This right extends to “all critical stages of the criminal process.” Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, 80–81 (2004); ¶ 65 (2004).

n.9 ¶ 101 (2004) (failure to present significant arguments supported by authority in an opening brief waives the issue).

on which the appellant relies.”); ¶ 101, n.9 (2004) (“In Arizona, opening briefs must present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth an appellant’s position on the issues raised.”) (); ¶ 8 (App. 2001) (issue waived because defendant fail

n.9 ¶ 101 (2004) (failure to present significant arguments, supported by authority in an opening brief waives an issue).

¶ 48 (2004) (court entitled to rely on record supporting competency adjudication unless defendant presents reasonable ground for another competency hearing based on new facts) (-61 (1975)).

¶ 191 (2004) (“[T]he Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Arizona Constitutions require that the version of § 13-503 in effect at the time the crimes were committed be applied.”).

n.9, ¶ 101 (2004) (finding waiver because the defendant “[m]erely mention[ed] an argument”); ¶ 24 (App. 2015) (finding an argument waived because the defendant did not “present 6 STATE v. JORDAN

¶26 A defendant is entitled to an instruction “on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence.” ¶ 197 (2004).

¶6 As to his claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and that the superior court implicitly found he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing, he merely asserts that error occurred and, thus, ¶ 16 (App. 2013); n.9, ¶ 101 (2004).