Cited by

Pandeli, 242 Ariz. at 180 ¶ 3 ().

When a defendant raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, “[i]t is not only the integrity of the attorney which is at stake but that of the entire fact-finding process,” and “the court must have before it all relevant facts relating to the claim.” (holding the trial court must have all relevant facts relating to a claim questioning the competency of an attorney).

Palazzetti does not explain why his attorney’s failure to obtain interview transcripts was “unreasonable under the circumstances,” or how the lack of transcripts “affected the outcome of the proceedings,” id.

¶4 “A petition for post-conviction relief is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court,” and this court reviews “a trial court’s factual findings for clear error.” –48 (App. 1995) ( ).

¶ 45 (2003) (the trial court’s finding that the prosecutor did not engage in intentional misconduct was not “clearly erroneous”); (“Appellate review of a trial court’s findings of fact is limited to a determination whether those findings are clearly erroneous.”); ¶ 8 (App. 2002) (“We defer to the trial court’s finding that the prosecutor’s comment here, if improper, was not intentionally so.”).

is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court,” and this Court reviews “a trial court’s 3 STATE v. JENKINS Decision of the Court factual findings for clear error.” –48 (App. 1995) ( ).

2 STATE v. WADE Decision of the Court -52, -776 (1992).

¶19 To resolve the claim that the trial court erred by denying the double jeopardy motion to bar the retrial, “[w]e review a trial court’s decision whether to dismiss a prosecution with prejudice under [Pool] for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 5, (citation omitted); (noting that “[a]ppellate review of a trial court’s findings of fact is limited to a determination of whether those findings are 2 Hollingsworth does not appeal his conviction for misdemeanor assault.

Although a client’s waiver of privilege is usually explicit, it may also be waived impliedly.

2 STATE v. SANTOS BARAJAS Decision of the Court erroneous.” ( ).

can comply with our supreme court’s instructions in Torres, particularly where a defendant asserts his or her attorney has been dishonest, without some inquiry into confidential matters.2 Paris-Sheldon’s assertion her attorney had lied to her and failed to properly investigate her case clearly “question[ed] the competency and reputation of the attorney who represented [her].” (finding attorney-client privilege waived where ineffective assistance of counsel claimed).

("Appellate review of a trial court's findings of fact is limited to a determination of whether those findings are clearly erroneous.").

¶ 17 Applying the same principles of fairness, , that the defendant in a criminal action had waived the attorney-client privilege by claiming trial counsel had been ineffective in connection with the defendant’s entry of a no contest plea.

where the attorney-client privilege was invoked, our supreme court again stated that a defendant would not be allowed to use privilege as a shield to block inquiry into an issue that he had raised.