State v. Santanna

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that “[p]roof of ineffectiveness must be to a demonstrable reality rather than a matter of speculation” and courts are required to give effect to a presumption of competence absent contrary evidence in an “unsupplemented record”
• applying Arizona Rules of Evidence and stating that specific prior violent acts admissible if known to defendant to show defendant’s state of mind
• victim’s character not an, essential element of defense; but opinion unclear whether this was because defendant was no longer claiming self-defense
• “Proof of ineffectiveness must be to a demonstrable reality rather than a matter of speculation.”
• “Proof of ineffectiveness must be to a demonstrable reality rather than a matter of speculation.”
• “[p]roof of ineffectiveness must be to a demonstrable reality rather than a matter of speculation;” courts required to give effect to presumption of competence absent contrary evidence in “unsupplemented record”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).