Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Russell, 858 P.2d 674.

34 citing documents.

State v. Cowled Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Cowled Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(finding no constitutional violation when the defendant made no attempt to find or subpoena the witness); (finding no constitutional violation when the defendant “never invoked the powers of the court to compel” witness testimony).
State v. Wauneka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Wauneka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Irvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Irvin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jefferson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Jefferson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Tammy M. v. Department of Child Safety 397 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Tammy M. v. Department of Child Safety 397 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
-33 , -78 (App. 1993) (court’s failure to expressly find knowing and voluntary waiver excused where record included defendant’s early, articulate pro se motion for self-representation, signed waiver of counsel form, and evidence of knowledge of legal proceedings and therefore supported implicit fi
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Coleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kaul-Arob Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kaul-Arob Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“[A]fter waiving his right to counsel at trial, the defendant has no constitutionally protected right to challenge the advice or services provided by advisory counsel.”) (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 557, 107 S. Ct. 1990, 1994, 95 L. Ed. 2d 539 (1987)).
State v. Uriarte-Velazquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Uriarte-Velazquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(holding no denial of right to compulsory process where defendant “never invoked the powers of the court to compel [witness’s] testimony”).
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“The trial court strikes a balance between these two seemingly conflicting rights by assuring itself that a defendant proceeds in propria persona knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.”
State v. Laakmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Laakmann Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Moreover, Laakmann failed to call that witness, meaning he “never invoked the powers of the court to compel [his expert’s] testimony, and the court did not deny him the right to compulsory process.” 3 ¶14 Fourth, although Laakmann argues ineffective assistance of trial counsel, such a claim can only be raised in post-conviction proceedings, not on direct appeal.
State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
(implying a finding of constitutional waiver despite no explicit trial court finding where record strongly supported waiver of counsel).
State v. Organ 234 P.3d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Organ 234 P.3d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Rodriguez 23 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Rodriguez 23 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Estrada 18 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Estrada 18 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Jenkins 970 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Jenkins 970 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Cruz 938 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Cruz 938 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(counsel’s arguments and the evidence can clarify unclear jury instructions).