Cited by

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

392 citing documents.

State v. Pelton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Pelton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Zimmerle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Zimmerle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Maher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Maher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Clayton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Charpiot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Clayton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Charpiot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Stallings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Stallings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Adolf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Adolf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Christian Paul Royalty 336 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Christian Paul Royalty 336 P.3d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶14 Royalty must show his counsel’s performance “fell below objectively reasonable standards.” citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dozier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 22, (citations omitted).
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Pierre Banda 307 P.3d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Pierre Banda 307 P.3d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
ummarily rejecting his claim trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to raise the statute of limitations before “allowing him to enter a plea agreement.” “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.”
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez 278 P.3d 1276 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez 278 P.3d 1276 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Kenneth John Falcone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Kenneth John Falcone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Richard Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Richard Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Jacob T. Osterkamp v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Jacob T. Osterkamp v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
¶ 13, (where non-pleading defendant represented by same counsel on appeal and in Rule 32 proceedings, defendant did not waive and was not precluded from raising in successive proceeding claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise same in first post-conviction p
State v. Petty 238 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Petty 238 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
[and] the obvious method is by means of a second petition.” Id.; , (nonpleading defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel not waived when appeal and first Rule 32 proceeding filed by same attorney).
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
t Swoopes raised a claim of IAC in his first post-conviction petition in 1990.5 In general, 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.” State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1, ¶ 4, (same); Mata, 185 Ariz. at 334, 916 P.2d at 1050 (rejecting approach that would permit “a never-ending tunnel” of post-conviction proceedings in which “defe
State of Arizona v. Alejandro Chaparro Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Alejandro Chaparro Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Rachel Marie Vallejo 158 P.3d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Rachel Marie Vallejo 158 P.3d 916 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