State v. Nunez, 2435-4-PC
| Decision Date | 01 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 2435-4-PC,2435-4-PC |
| Citation | 660 P.2d 858,135 Ariz. 257 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Fernando NUNEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
David S. Ellsworth, Yuma County Atty., by Tim Holtzen, Deputy County Atty., Yuma, for appellee.
John Foreman, Phoenix, for appellant.
The petitioner, Fernando Nunez, was convicted in 1971 of second degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon. His conviction was affirmed by this court in State v. Nunez, 109 Ariz. 408, 510 P.2d 380 (1973). In July 1982 petitioner, through counsel, filed in the superior court a petition for post conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S. The superior court held a hearing on the petition and denied relief. The petitioner filed a petition for review.
We have reviewed the record in light of the issues raised by petitioner. We find that the findings of the trial court are supported by the evidence; therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to relief.
We accepted review of this petition for the sole purpose of considering petitioner's claim that the standard for legal representation in criminal cases, set forth in State v. Watson, 134 Ariz. 1, 653 P.2d 351 (1982), should be applied retroactively.
The trial judge found that the legal representation furnished petitioner did not render the proceeding a "sham or mockery of justice" and the representation satisfied the "reasonably effective assistance of counsel" test. See State v. Alaffa, 126 Ariz. 573, 617 P.2d 525 (1980). Counsel for petitioner, however, maintains that the trial court should have applied the minimal competence test of State v. Watson, supra.
Prior to Watson the test for judging ineffective assistance of counsel was whether the representation rendered the proceedings a sham or mockery of justice. In Watson we adopted a different standard to measure legal representation in criminal cases. We now hold that the standard announced in Watson is prospective in application. The new standard shall be applied to cases tried after October 18, 1982, as well as to cases pending on appeal as of that date.
The findings of the trial judge are affirmed, and relief is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Allen, CR-87-0087-PR
...Robinson is applicable to the present case since it was pending review when the Robinson decision was announced. State v. Nunez, 135 Ariz. 257, 258, 660 P.2d 858, 859 (1983). However, the defense counsel never objected to the hearsay statements offered pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1416. We have ......
-
Adkins v. Cline
...a decision applies to cases on appeal on the date the decision is rendered as well as to cases tried after that date. State v. Nunez, 135 Ariz. 257, 660 P.2d 858 (1983). 676 P.2d at 1154 (emphasis supplied). Likewise, in State v. LeMaster, 137 Ariz. 159, 669 P.2d 592 (App.1983), the Arizona......
-
State v. Gerlaugh
...to cases tried or pending on appeal after the effective date of the Watson decision (October 18, 1982). See State v. Nunez, 135 Ariz. 257, 660 P.2d 858 (1983). In Nash, we did not expressly announce whether this modified standard was to be applied retroactively or only prospectively. See St......
-
State v. Harding
...competence standard set down in Watson, supra, applicable to cases on appeal as of the date of the Watson decision, State v. Nunez, 135 Ariz. 257, 660 P.2d 858 (1983). There is no showing that a change of judge was critical in the first place, because the facts do not support a conclusion t......