Cited by

(interpreting Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.8 which provides a similar evidentiary hearing requirement in post-conviction proceedings).

(flight 6Rodriguez generally asserts that a flight instruction is inappropriate in any case where “a defendant is charged with a crime that involves flight or concealment as an element of the offense.” However, he relies almost exclusively on out-of-state cases to support this claim.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687- 88 (1984); (adopting Strickland)

(“When the record is such that [a] defendant is either guilty of the crime charged or not guilty, the trial court should refuse a lesser included instruction.” (citation omitted)).

(holding there was sufficient evidence the defendant committed felony murder with a kidnapping predicate where “the kidnapping occurred when the victim was beaten on her bed and dragged down to the floor” and “[t]he murder occurred later, when she was strangled on the floor”— showing distinct acts); see al

“[S]tare decisis commands that ‘precedents of the court should not lightly be overruled,’ and mere disagreement with those who preceded us is not enough.” ¶ 22 (2011) ().

“When the record is such that defendant is either guilty of the crime charged or not guilty, the trial court should refuse a lesser included instruction.”

("The jury, the sentencing court, and this court are not bound by defendant's version of the evidence."); Clemons, 110 Ariz. at 557.

(“If no prejudice is shown, the court need not inquire into counsel’s performance.”).

(“If no prejudice is shown, the court need not inquire into counsel’s performance.”).

(“If no prejudice is shown, the court need not inquire into counsel’s performance.”).

¶103 Riley errs here by patching together a non-existent “above the norm test” that effectively revives proportionality review, –17 (1992).

[defendant’s] unsuspecting wife”); 510–13 (1991) (defendant and romantic partner schemed to kill partner’s husband to collect insurance proceeds), –17 (1992).

Our conclusion also finds analogous support in State v. White, a capital case in which this Court held that a defendant’s incompetence during the appellate process does not violate due process and that “an appeal should proceed regardless of a defendant’s competency.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

See Jeffers, 135 Ariz. at 427, 661 P.2d at 1128; (no evidentiary hearing required on defendant’s claim of newly discovered evidence when his allegations, taken as true, would not have changed the verdict)

“If the evidence shows a defendant’s manner of leaving the scene of a crime reveals a consciousness of guilt, even in the absence of pursuit, an instruction on flight is permissible.”

Plew, 155 Ariz. at 47, 745 P.2d at 105 (citation omitted) (stating that the effect of alcohol intoxication is a subject of common knowledge and not a proper subject for expert testimony); (holding that the general effects of alcohol on the human body and a person’s ability to reason are within the common knowledge and experience of a jury; as a result, no expert testimony is necessary to assist the trier of fact); -15

see also Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 199 1 Although Ovante alleges violations of several federal and state constitutional provisions, he fails to develop arguments for most of them.

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 186-87, 96 S.Ct 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976); State v. Salazar, 173 Ariz. 399, 411, State v. Gillies, 135 Ariz. 500, 507

2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)

the sentences of death are excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and defendant,” we discontinued the practice in 1992 because proportionality review is fraught with problems and not constitutionally required, -17, -84 (1992); see also Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 50-51 (1984) (holding that the Eighth Amendment does not require “comparative proportionality 13 review by an appellate court”).

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 186-87 (1976)