Cited by

We presume the jury followed its instructions, ¶ 58 (2017), and therefore considered each count separately and uninfluenced by its decision on the other counts.

In evaluating an IAC claim, the court must begin with the “strong presumption that counsel’s conduct [fell] within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” ¶ 7 (2017) (quotation omitted).

¶ 4 (2017) (citation omitted).

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

DISCUSSION ¶6 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).

P. 16.4(b); ¶ 33 (2017) (“Counsel’s failure to make a futile motion does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.”) (citation omitted).

¶ 8 (2017); -28, ¶ 21 (App. 2017).

2 STATE v. LONG Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶6 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).

-15, ¶ 12 (App. 2019) (Rules of Criminal Procedure); ¶ 4 (2017) (legal conclusions).

tion for PCR for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2020), but review the interpretation of the criminal rules and the court’s legal 2 STATE v. JUMPER Decision of the Court conclusions de novo, ¶ 12 (App. 2019); ¶ 4 (2017).

“Simply disagreeing with strategy decisions cannot support a determination that representation was inadequate.” ¶ 8 (2017).

DISCUSSION ¶7 We review the denial of a petition for post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 19 (2012), and constitutional issues de novo, ¶ 4 (2017).