Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Krone v. Hotham, 890 P.2d 1149.

42 citing documents.

State v. Kirui Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Kirui Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
This ensures that a defendant can receive “speedy relief for those claims which are not proper for direct appeals” and, depending on the viability of the Rule 32 claim, “could make consideration of the direct appeal moot and could hasten the start of a new trial or other resolution of the case.” Jones, 182 Ariz. at 434 ().
State v. Linville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Linville Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
The law does not guarantee “perfect counsel, only competent counsel.” -67 (1995).
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
05) (“burden of persuasion” shifts to a defendant in fundamental-error review to discourage him “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 seek[ing] appellate reversal.’” (alterations in original) (–14 (1989), –67 (1995))); (trial court not required to determine the voluntariness of confession sua sponte).
In the Matter of Juan M Martinez Ariz. 2020
In the Matter of Juan M Martinez Ariz. 2020
See, (noting that “in cases where there has been misconduct of either the prosecutor or defense counsel, but reversal is not required, the proper remedy will be affirmance, followed by institution of bar disciplinary proceedings against the offending lawyer, if such proceedings are warranted” (emphasis added)).
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
A criminal defendant does not have the right to “perfect counsel, only competent counsel,” and ineffectiveness must be “a demonstrable reality rather than a matter of speculation,” (citation omitted).
State v. Begay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Begay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Eaton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Eaton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Accordingly, our supreme court has stated that, given Rule 17.4, it does “not endorse any mention of plea bargains in final 4 STATE v. EATON Decision of the Court arguments.” n.2 (1989), -67 (1995).
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich Ariz. 2017
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich Ariz. 2017
State v. Beasley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Beasley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶9 “Defendants are not guaranteed perfect counsel, only competent counsel.” –67 (1995).
State v. Falkenburry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Falkenburry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
2 STATE v. FALKENBURRY Decision of the Court ¶4 “Defendants are not guaranteed perfect counsel, only competent counsel.” –67, –52 (1995).
State v. Harmon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Harmon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“[D]eterminations of trial strategy, even if later proven unsuccessful, are not ineffective assistance of counsel.” -15, -19 (1989) (citations omitted), -67, -52 (1995).
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“Defense counsel’s determinations of trial strategy, even if later proven unsuccessful, are not ineffective assistance of counsel.” (citations omitted), -67, -52 (1995).
State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Wise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Weatherford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Weatherford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶4 “Defendants are not guaranteed perfect counsel, only competent counsel.”
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
Because the pleading defendant‟s only means of obtaining appellate review is through a Rule 32 proceeding, the court reasoned, he “is constitutionally entitled to the effective post-conviction relief so that all claims may be raised in one proceeding, -67, -52 (1995); ¶¶ 13-14, -68 (App. 2003), conceivably the defendant could seek relief in a first post-conviction proceeding commenced while the appeal is pending and raise a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in a second, time
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 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. Spreitz 39 P.3d 525 Ariz. 2002
State v. Spreitz 39 P.3d 525 Ariz. 2002
State v. Krone 897 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1995
State v. Krone 897 P.2d 621 Ariz. 1995
State v. Jones 897 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Jones 897 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
-366 , -51 (March 7, 1995).