Cited by

We consider “in light of all the circumstances, whether counsel’s performance was reasonable under prevailing professional norms.” Bigger, 251 Ariz. at 407, ¶ 8 ( ¶ 5 (2017)).

¶ 69 (2017) (Arizona formally recognizes cumulative error only in the prosecutorial-misconduct context).

“An abuse of discretion occurs if the PCR court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 4 (2017).

“An abuse of discretion occurs if the [superior] court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 4 (2017).

“In short, reviewing courts must be very cautious in deeming trial counsel’s assistance ineffective when counsel’s challenged acts or omissions might have a reasonable explanation.” ¶ 7 (2017).

DISCUSSION ¶10 We review the superior court’s ruling on a PCR petition for an abuse of discretion, a category that includes errors of law, failure to “adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision,” or factual findings that are “clearly erroneous.” ¶¶ 3–4 (2017).

To establish prejudice, the defendant must show “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” ¶ 6 (2017) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694).

This Court considers, “in light of all the circumstances, whether counsel’s performance was reasonable under prevailing professional norms.” Bigger, 251 Ariz. at 407, ¶ 8 ( ¶ 5 (2017)).

“We presume that jurors follow the court’s instructions.” ¶ 58 (2017).

DISCUSSION ¶9 We review a superior court’s ruling on a PCR petition for an abuse of discretion, which occurs if the “court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 4 (2017).

¶12 To establish prejudice, a defendant must show “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” ¶ 6 (2017) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694).

A court determines counsel’s conduct through “the practice and expectations of the legal community and asks, in light of all circumstances, whether counsel’s performance was reasonable under the prevailing professional norms.” Bigger, 251 Ariz. at 407, ¶ 8 ( ¶ 5 (2017)).

DISCUSSION ¶7 We review a superior court’s ruling on a PCR petition for an abuse of discretion, which occurs if the “court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 4 (2017) (citations omitted).

“An abuse of discretion occurs if the PCR court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 4 (2017).

“An abuse of discretion occurs if the PCR court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 4 (2017).

DISCUSSION ¶7 We review a superior court’s ruling on a PCR petition for an abuse of discretion, which occurs if the “court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 4 (2017).

An abuse of discretion occurs “if the PCR court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 4 (2017) (citation omitted).

¶14 As to the deficient performance prong, we “must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy.” ¶ 7 (2017) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689).

¶ 6 (2017) (defendant must show more than that the error “’had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding’”) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693)).

state expressly its conclusions of law relating to each issue presented.” ¶ 3 (2017) () (interpreting then Rule 32.8, which has been renumbered as Rule 32.13).

“An abuse of discretion occurs if the PCR court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 4 (2017).