Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bennett, 146 P.3d 63.

392 citing documents.

State v. Alba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” ¶ 21 (2006).
State v. Albin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶17 “To state a colorable claim of [IAC], a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and that this deficiency prejudiced the defendant.” ¶ 21 (2006) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).
State v. Orduno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶¶ 15, 16 (2006) (a criminal defendant not represented by the same counsel as in the direct appeal must raise appellate IAC in the first PCR petition).
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶10 “To state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and that this deficiency prejudiced the defendant.” ¶ 21 (2006) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).
State v. Riehle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
But the “[f]ailure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal to an [IAC] claim.” ¶ 21 (2006).
State v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“A colorable claim is one that, if the allegations are true, might have changed the outcome.” ¶ 21 (2006) (citation modified).
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” ¶ 21 (2006).
State v. Hyde Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“To state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and that this deficiency prejudiced the defendant.” ¶ 21 (2006) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).
State v. Dudley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” ¶ 21 (2006).
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Knox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
STATE v. KNOX Decision of the Court gabapentin nor a syncope event associated with gabapentin contributed to her motor vehicle accident.” ¶11 “To state a colorable claim of [IAC] a defendant must show both that the counsel’s performance fell below objectively reasonable standards, and that this deficiency prejudiced the defendant.” ¶ 21 (2006) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).
State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Berhane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” ¶ 21 (2006).
State v. Fields Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” ¶ 21 (2006).
State v. Benitez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶11 “To state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and that this deficiency prejudiced the defendant.” ¶ 21 (2006) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).
State v. Norris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Norris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” ¶ 21 (2006).
State v. Vigorito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Vigorito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Sajovic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Sajovic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶12 To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant “must show both that counsel’s performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and that this deficiency prejudiced [him].” ¶ 21 (2006); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
State v. Jiron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Jiron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 17 (2006) (citing cases); ¶10 (2024) (citing cases).
State v. Lawrence Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Lawrence Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” ¶ 21 (2006).
State v. Quijada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Quijada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
P. 33.2; –67, ¶¶ 13, 17, 21 (2006).
State v. Beatte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Beatte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” ¶ 21 (2006).
State v. Hartwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Hartwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” ¶ 21 (2006).
State v. Timlick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Timlick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” ¶ 21 (2006).
State v. Peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” ¶ 21 (2006).
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Ricci Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Vasquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” State v. 3 ¶ 21 (2006).
State v. Earl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Earl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
“Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” ¶ 21 (2006).
State v. Preston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Preston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
To state a colorable claim, “a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and that this deficiency prejudiced the defendant.” ¶ 21 (2006).
State v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Tupper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Tupper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 21 (2006) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).
State v. Jimenez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶9 To state a colorable IAC claim, Jimenez “must show both that counsel’s performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and that 3 STATE v. JIMENEZ Decision of the Court this deficiency prejudiced [him].” ¶ 21 (2006) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).