Cited by

DISCUSSION ¶7 We review the superior court’s PCR rulings 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.” ¶ 6 (2021).

DISCUSSION ¶9 Alba only reasserts his ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) claim in his petition for review to us.1 We review the superior court’s PCR rulings 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.” ¶ 6 (2021).

DISCUSSION ¶7 We review the superior court’s PCR rulings 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.” ¶ 6 (2021).

We review the superior court’s PCR rulings 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.” ¶ 6 (2021).

An abuse of discretion occurs when “the court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the fact necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 6 (2021).

DISCUSSION ¶8 We review the superior court’s PCR rulings 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.” ¶ 6 (2021).

DISCUSSION ¶7 We review the superior court’s PCR rulings 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.” ¶ 6 (2021).

DISCUSSION ¶6 We review the superior court’s PCR rulings 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.” ¶ 6 (2021).

DISCUSSION ¶6 This Court reviews the superior court’s PCR rulings 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.” ¶ 6 (2021).

¶13 “[M]atters of trial strategy and tactics are committed to defense counsel’s judgment and generally cannot serve as the basis for an IAC claim.” ¶ 12 (2021) (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION ¶9 We review the superior court’s ruling on a petition for post- conviction relief 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.” ¶ 6 (2021).

DISCUSSION ¶7 The court reviews the superior court’s PCR rulings 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.” ¶ 6 (2021).

DISCUSSION ¶6 We review the superior court’s PCR rulings 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.” ¶ 6 (2021).

Abuse of discretion occurs when “the court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 6 (2021).

¶5 To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must (1) “demonstrate that counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and (2) “that he was prejudiced thereby.” ¶ 8 (2021) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984)).

¶2 We review the superior court’s ruling on a petition for post- conviction relief 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.” ¶ 6 (2021).

To prevail on such a claim, a petitioner must “demonstrate that counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that he was prejudiced thereby.” ¶ 8 (2021) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687– 88 (1984)).

2 STATE v. JIRON Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶5 We review the superior court’s PCR rulings 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.” ¶ 6 (2021).

if the defendant adequately explains why the failure to timely file a notice was not the defendant’s fault”); –13, ¶¶ 32–37 (2021) (recognizing A.R.S.

Hardy has not met his burden of establishing that trial counsel’s decision not to call certain witnesses, engage a handwriting expert, or move to suppress the letters was “not a tactical one but, rather, revealed ineptitude, inexperience or lack of preparation.” ¶ 10 (2021) ().

I. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ¶10 To prevail on an IAC claim, a petitioner “must demonstrate that counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that he was prejudiced thereby.” ¶ 8 (2021) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984)).

I. IAC ¶9 To prevail on an IAC claim, a petitioner must “demonstrate that counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that he was prejudiced thereby.” ¶ 8 (2021) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984)).

¶12 To establish his IAC claim, Alvarez must “demonstrate that counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that he was prejudiced thereby.” ¶ 8 (2021).

¶2 We review the superior court’s ruling on a petition for post- conviction relief 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.” ¶ 6 (2021).

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984); –08 ¶ 10 (2021).

To establish an abuse of discretion, Allee must show the superior court erred or “fail[ed] to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 6 (2021).