Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Valdez, 770 P.2d 313.

129 citing documents.

State v. Weatherford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶4 “Defendants are not guaranteed perfect counsel, only competent counsel.”
State v. Spurling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Spurling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
”Defense counsel’s determinations of trial strategy, even if later proven unsuccessful, are not ineffective assistance of counsel.”
State v. Van Leeuwen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Van Leeuwen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Defense counsel's determinations of trial strategy, even if later proven unsuccessful, are not ineffective assistance of counsel.” (citations omitted).
State v. Garrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garrison Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Della Lisa Vermuele Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Della Lisa Vermuele Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Jaren Scott Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Jaren Scott Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Valverde 208 P.3d 233 Ariz. 2009
State v. Valverde 208 P.3d 233 Ariz. 2009
at ¶ 19 (-14, - 18 (1989)).
State v. Freeney 207 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Freeney 207 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 19 , -14 , -18 (1989) ("Defendant cannot take his chances on a favorable verdict, reserving the 'hole card’ of a later appeal on an evidentiary matter that was curable at trial, and then seek appellate reversal from an unfavorable verdict.”), overruling on other grounds recognized in State v. Rojers, 21
State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
“‘Fundamental error is that which goes to the heart of the defendant’s case or takes from him a right essential to his defense.’” -14, -18 (1989).
State of Arizona v. Flythe 193 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Flythe 193 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(limited appellate relief designed to prevent parties from using curable trial error as “hole card” on appeal)
State v. Avila 170 P.3d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Avila 170 P.3d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
at 567, ¶ 19 , 115 P.3d at 607 (-14 , -18 (1989)).
State v. Rojers 169 P.3d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Rojers 169 P.3d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567, ¶ 19 , 115 P.3d at 607 (‘We impose this additional limitation upon obtaining relief for fundamental error to discourage a defendant from ‘tak[ing] his chances on a favorable verdict, reserving the “hole card” of a later appeal on [a] matter that was curable at trial, and then seeking] appellate reversal.’ ”) (-14 , -18 (1989) (overruled on other grounds)).
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
State v. Henderson 115 P.3d 601 Ariz. 2005
We impose this additional limitation upon obtaining relief for fundamental error to discourage a defendant from “tak[ing] his chances on a favorable verdict, reserving the ‘hole card’ of a later appeal on [a] matter that was curable at trial, and then seeking] appellate reversal.” -14 , -18 (1989).
State v. Spreitz 39 P.3d 525 Ariz. 2002
State v. Spreitz 39 P.3d 525 Ariz. 2002
see also State v. -3- Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 599, (ineffectiveness claims should be brought in Rule 32 proceedings).
State v. Espinosa 29 P.3d 278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Espinosa 29 P.3d 278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
-14 , -18 (1989) (“Defendant cannot take his chances on a favorable verdict, reserving the ‘hole card’ of a later appeal on an evidentiary matter that was curable at trial, and then seek appellate reversal from an unfavorable verdict.”).
State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Garza 994 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Garza 994 P.2d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
(knife held to victim’s neck and cut on neck sufficient circumstantial evidence of fear and apprehension); State v. Bolman, 222 Ga.App.
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Trostle 951 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1997
State v. Baldenegro 932 P.2d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Baldenegro 932 P.2d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Towery 920 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1996
State v. Towery 920 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1996
State v. Rodriguez 903 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Rodriguez 903 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Krone v. Hotham 890 P.2d 1149 Ariz. 1995
Krone v. Hotham 890 P.2d 1149 Ariz. 1995
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
State v. Wood 881 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1994
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Rudi Apelt 861 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1993

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by