Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Knapp v. Hardy, 523 P.2d 1308.

30 citing documents.

Lopez v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Lopez v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“[T]he county attorney has no standing to object as to who will or will not represent the defendant or be associated as counsel.”); (“[T]he prosecution has no right to interfere with or prevent a defendant’s access to a witness.”).
State v. Haslock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Haslock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-12 (1974) (an indigent defendant may hire private counsel to assist the court-appointed public defender).
State v. Ralston-Gon Zales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Ralston-Gon Zales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Though “the unavailability of a key witness” may qualify as an “extraordinary circumstance” under Rule 8.5(b), a court has discretion to deny a continuance if the witness’s absence could have been “foreseen and 1 (permitting indigent defendant to receive services from privately retained attorney who associates with appointed counsel).
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Workum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
If available,7 an advice-of-counsel defense requires a showing that: 5 privately retained counsel may associate with appointed counsel in representing a criminal defendant.
State v. Angulo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Angulo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Derek Jesus Ramos 372 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Derek Jesus Ramos 372 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
P., directs that a defendant “shall provide a written notice to the prosecutor specifying all defenses as to which the defendant intends to introduce evidence at 1 (counsel privately retained by relative or friend may associate with public defender in representing criminal defendant).
Tripati v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Tripati v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(determination of indigency for purposes of entitlement to public defender reviewed for abuse of discretion); (no abuse of court’s discretion in finding parents not indigent for purposes of court-appointed
Robinson v. Hotham 118 P.3d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Robinson v. Hotham 118 P.3d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(“We feel that the trial court was wrong in its holding denying the right of the retained counsel to associate with the public defender’s office in this case.”).
Jacobson v. Anderson 57 P.3d 733 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Jacobson v. Anderson 57 P.3d 733 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
P. 6.4 (“Determination of indigency”); , (The parent “had no legal obligation to provide legal *545 counsel for the defendant, and the determination of indigency must be based on his financial condition and not that of relatives and friends.”).
Romley v. Schneider 45 P.3d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Romley v. Schneider 45 P.3d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Hurles v. Superior Court 849 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Hurles v. Superior Court 849 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See, , (It “strike[s] at the very heart of the adversary system ...
Smith v. Lewis 759 P.2d 1314 Ariz. 1988
Smith v. Lewis 759 P.2d 1314 Ariz. 1988
Further, the majority, , stated that it was “very doubtful that the prosecutors had any standing to question the representation of the defendants.” Id.
Alexander v. Superior Court 685 P.2d 1309 Ariz. 1984
Alexander v. Superior Court 685 P.2d 1309 Ariz. 1984
State v. Evans 629 P.2d 989 Ariz. 1981
State v. Evans 629 P.2d 989 Ariz. 1981
Rodriguez v. State 628 P.2d 950 Ariz. 1981
Rodriguez v. State 628 P.2d 950 Ariz. 1981
: “That the county attorney has standing to object to a determination of indigency there can be no doubt, but once that indigency is determined the county attorney has no standing to object as to who will or will not represent the defendant or be associated as counsel.