Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Darrel Peter Pandeli, 394 P.3d 2.

196 citing documents.

State v. Lovelis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Lovelis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
We need not address both deficient performance and prejudice “if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” ¶ 6 (2017) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 (1984)).
State of Arizona v. John Montenegro Cruz 487 P.3d 991 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. John Montenegro Cruz 487 P.3d 991 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 485 P.3d 554 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. William Craig Miller 485 P.3d 554 Ariz. 2021
State v. Waldrup Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. King 480 P.3d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. King 480 P.3d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Waldrup Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
We presume jurors follow their instructions, ¶ 58 (2017), and the State’s mischaracterization of the factor analysis did not create fundamental error.
State v. Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
We review a trial court's decision to give an instruction, over objection, for an abuse of discretion, -64, ¶ 51 (2009), but we review constitutional issues de novo, ¶ 4 (2017).
State v. Calvillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Calvillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Petitioner only asserts that counsel conducted “no investigation” and failed to “challenge any part of the [S]tate’s case on material [or] constitutional grounds.” -83, ¶¶ 2, 9, 22 (2017) (PCR counsel asserted fifteen specific IAC claims, including failure to cross-examine the State’s key witness and failure to present petitioner’s brain imaging scans.).
State v. MacIas 469 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. MacIas 469 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
6 ¶ 4 (2017) (–44, ¶ 6 (App. 2013)).
State v. Norrington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Norrington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Tran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Tran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶5 We will not disturb the superior court’s decision absent an abuse of discretion, which is found where the court “makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” 2 ¶ 4 (2017).
State v. Aguilar-Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Aguilar-Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Palazzetti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Palazzetti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
We need not address both deficient performance and prejudice “if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” ¶ 6 (2017) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697).
Haley W., Gary W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Haley W., Gary W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy.” ¶ 7 (2017) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689).
State v. Wollenberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wollenberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
This court is not required to consider both prongs of the Strickland test “if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” ¶ 6 (2017).
State v. Lowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Lowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
A reviewing court cannot simply second-guess defense counsel’s strategic decisions and “must be very cautious in deeming trial counsel’s assistance ineffective.” ¶¶ 7-8 (2017).
State v. Wood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Wood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
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).
State v. Smith 422 P.3d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Smith 422 P.3d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Pandeli , , ¶ 4, , 7 (2017), quoting Denz , , ¶ 6, 306 P.3d at 100 -01 .
State of Arizona v. Kevin Artice Miles 414 P.3d 680 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Kevin Artice Miles 414 P.3d 680 Ariz. 2018
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Patton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Fernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wyatt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Fernandez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wyatt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
State v. Valdez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Valdez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
__, ¶ 33 (2017) (“Counsel’s failure to make a futile motion does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.”) (citation omitted).