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. Moss, 173 P.3d 1021.

26 citing documents.

  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to A.R. and B.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    Sec., ¶¶ 18-19 (App. 2007).
  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to J.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    Sec., ¶¶ 18–19 (App. 2007).
  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to A.Z. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2007) (affirming severance despite a due process claim, when appellant provided no basis to conclude that the proceedings “were fundamentally unfair; that the result of the hearing is unreliable; or that .
  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to C.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    Sec., ¶¶ 18–19 (App. 2007).
  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to A.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    Sec., –23, ¶ 8 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).
  • Robert L. v. Dcs, A.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Emily B., Andrew D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Sec., ¶ 8 (App. 2007) (declining to consider Donald W. because the Arizona Supreme Court vacated it in part and designated the remaining portions as a memorandum decision).
  • Harmony F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Sec., ¶ 14 (App. 2007) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 696 (1984)).
  • Rodney L., Deana L. v. Dcs, J.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Sec., – 25, ¶¶ 8–17 (App. 2007) (summarizing arguments for and against recognizing ineffective assistance of counsel as constitutional grounds for reversible error in a severance case but ultimately declining to resolve the issue).
  • Serah E. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Sec., ¶ 8 (App. 2007) (ineffective assistance claim must establish both deficient performance and prejudice).
  • Haley W., Gary W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Sec., -23, 325, ¶¶ 8, 17 (App. 2007) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984), and Pima Cty.
  • Shirley R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Sec., -25, ¶¶ 8, 17 (App. 2007).
  • Rodney S. v. Dcs, M.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Sec., -23, ¶¶ 8-12 (App. 2007).
  • Crystal F. v. Dcs, L.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Sec., -24, ¶¶ 8-12 (App. 2007).
  • Melissa M. v. Dcs, J.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Sec., ¶ 18 (App. 2007).5 ¶15 Mother cannot show that but for the admission of Dr. Bluth’s psychological evaluation the superior court would not have terminated her parental rights.
  • Leticia A. v. Dcs, R.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Ashley W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Sec., ¶¶ 13–14 (App. 2007) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 696 (1984)).2 We presume Mother's counsel provided competent assistance, ¶ 22 (2006), and Mother must prove that her counsel's conduct fell below the standard of professional competence and demonstrate
  • Paul v. Dana B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Sec., ¶ 18, (citations and internal quotations omitted).
  • Summer P. v. Shirley M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    On appeal, Summer asserts that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her request for new counsel in part because Ms. Davis had “objectively demonstrated her ineffectiveness” by “not even submitting a list of witnesses or exhibits.” In John M. v. Arizona Dep’t of Economic Sec., ¶ 11, we held that the test for effective assistance of counsel set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) applies to severance proceedings and that, like in criminal cases, “the ultimate focu
  • Jon D., Kristie W. v. Dcs, C.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Tanya N. v. Dcs, M.N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Sec., ¶ 17, (noting that because father did not establish prejudice resulting from counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness, “we need not determine whether Arizona recognizes ineffective assistance of counsel as a separate ground for relief in an appeal of a termination order or resolves an al
  • Tamarra P. v. Dcs, M.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Jessica H. v. Dcs, C.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Lester L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Caruso v. Caruso Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Sec., -25, ¶¶ 14, 17, -26 (App. 2007) As such, a civil defendant in Father’s position may not obtain post-judgment relief based upon ineffective assistance of counsel.
  • Jacob T. Osterkamp v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    Sec., (characterizing right to counsel as “„illusory‟ without remedy for ineffective assistance”), (Or.