Osterkamp v. Browning
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge.
¶ 1 In this special action, petitioner Jacob Osterkamp challenges the respondent judge’s order denying his request for counsel in the underlying post-conviction proceeding. For the reasons stated below, we accept jurisdiction and hold that Rule 32.4, Ariz. R.Crim. P., entitles an indigent, pleading defendant to the appointment of counsel in the defendant’s second, timely filed post-conviction proceeding so that he may investigate and possibly assert a claim that counsel in the defendant’s first, “of-right” post-conviction proceeding had rendered ineffective…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Pennsylvania v. FinleySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Evitts v. LuceySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. GeistOregon Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. BennettArizona Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. MataArizona Supreme Court · 1996
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Southwest Gas Corp. v. IRWIN EX REL. COUNTYCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
- State of Arizona v. Ramon Escareno MerazCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
- Sierra Tucson Crc Health Group v. Louise LitwackCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
- State v. HardenCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
- State of Arizona v. Darren Irving GoldinCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.