Counsel in the instant case appears to have adequately represented the defendant." State v. Brown, 107 Ariz. 375, 377, 489 P.2d 12, 14 (1971). We have read the record and we do not believe it supports defendant's contention.
The sentence imposed of 20 to 30 years is within the limits of the statute, and it does not present a clear abuse of discretion which would require that it be reduced. State v. Smith, 107 Ariz. 218, 484 P.2d 1049 (1971); State v. Carpenter, 105 Ariz. 504, 467 P.2d 749 (1970); State v. Brown, 107 Ariz. 375, 489 P.2d 12 (1971); State v. Voeckell, 69 Ariz. 145, 210 P.2d 972 (1949). It must be noted that in addition to the circumstances presented in the instant case, the trial judge no doubt considered the fact that appellant had been convicted of felonies on three previous occasions, the last conviction being for murder in the second degree.
Clearly, the record in this case does not support a finding that the revocation hearing was a farce or mockery of justice, so we find appellant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. State v. Brown, 107 Ariz. 375, 489 P.2d 12 (1971). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
With reference to inadequacy of representation, the cases are clear in saying that a conviction will be held invalid on such grounds only if representation by counsel was a farce or a sham. State v. Brown, 107 Ariz. 375, 489 P.2d 12 (1971); Monsour v. Cady, 342 F. Supp. 353 (D.C. Wis. 1972). See also, State v. Burton, 16 Ariz. App. 61, 490 P.2d 1189 (1971); State v. Bustamante, 103 Ariz. 551, 447 P.2d 243 (1968).
When adequacy of counsel is attacked, the controlling principle is that a conviction will be held invalid on such grounds only if the representation by counsel was a farce or a sham. State v. Brown, 107 Ariz. 375, 489 P.2d 12 (1971). We find no prejudicial error in this case.
It is clear that appellant may attack the effectiveness of counsels' assistance in connection with the entry of his plea, as well as in connection with a trial on the merits. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 758, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970); Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 721, 68 S.Ct. 316, 322, 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948); State v. Brown, 107 Ariz. 375, 489 P.2d 12 (1971). As this court has previously indicated, however, only an "extreme case" will justify relief on the ground of lack of effective assistance of counsel.
We have reviewed the record in this matter and find that counsel's conduct and advice were more than adequate and indeed reveal a mature knowledge of the criminal justice system. State v. Brown, 107 Ariz. 375, 489 P.2d 12 (1971); State v. Bustamante, 103 Ariz. 551, 447 P.2d 243 (1968). The appellant's final contention is that the sentence is illegal and void because the extrinsic data furnished the trial court by way of the adult probation officer's pre-sentence report was inaccurate to some degree.