Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Krum, 903 P.2d 596.
- State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez 278 P.3d 1276 Ariz. 2012
-
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez
278 P.3d 1276
Ariz. 2012
(“To obtain an evidentiary hearing, a petitioner must make a colorable showing that the [factual] allegations, if true, would have changed the verdict.”); (“Rule 32 has as its aim th
- Jacob T. Osterkamp v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
-
Jacob T. Osterkamp v. State of Arizona
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Thus, although a non- pleading defendant is encouraged to wait for the resolution of the appeal before seeking 11 & n.5, & n.5 (1995); (holding non-pleading defendant has no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in post-conviction proceeding, notwithstanding state-created right to representation).
- State of Arizona v. Hesam Mohajerin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
-
State of Arizona v. Hesam Mohajerin
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(observing “[c]ourts have long been skeptical of recanted testimony claims, even when .
- State v. Bennett 146 P.3d 63 Ariz. 2006
- State v. Bennett 146 P.3d 63 Ariz. 2006
- State v. Mata 916 P.2d 1035 Ariz. 1996
-
Overruled
State v. Mata
916 P.2d 1035
Ariz. 1996
However, defendant’s argument fails because the court of appeals’ -92 , -600 (1995), in which we held that "ineffective assistance on a prior PCR petition is not a valid, substantive claim under Rule 32 because, for petitioners like Krum, there is no federal constitutional right to effective counsel in a PCR proceeding.
- State v. Pruett 912 P.2d 1357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
-
State v. Pruett
912 P.2d 1357
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
-601 (Ariz.1995) (those defendants who have a direct appeal have no constitutional right to effective counsel in a post-conviction-relief proceeding).