DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Anderson, 392 P.2d 784.

75 citing documents.

  • State v. Mohon 412 P.2d 79 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct.
  • Johnson & Douglas v. Superior Court 409 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • Johnson & Douglas v. Superior Court 409 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    Procedure, 17 A.R.S., provides in part as follows: “Before the defendant is arraigned on a charge of felony, if he is without counsel, the court shall ask him if he desires the aid of counsel and if he answers in the affirmative, and declares, under oath, that he has no means to employ counsel, the court shall assign counsel to represent him in the action.” , many lawyers and judges believed that there was no power to appoint an attorney to represent an indigent except in relation to felonies an
  • State v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 409 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Franklin 409 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 409 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
  • State v. Franklin 409 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
    The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience and conduct of the accused.”
  • State v. Padilla 409 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Padilla 409 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    *376 The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience and conduct of accused.” at 131
  • State v. Peel 407 P.2d 756 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Peel 407 P.2d 756 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Bird 407 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Bird 407 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1965
    1199 , 12 L. Ed.2d 246 (1964); , , all of which decisions were handed down after the trial and filing of defendant’s brief on appeal raise issues of importance to this case.
  • State v. Betts 406 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Betts 406 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    The hearing related to “a serious offense”
  • Leonard v. Eyman 405 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • Leonard v. Eyman 405 P.2d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • State v. Fullen 404 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Fullen 404 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • Application of Estrada 403 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
  • Application of Estrada 403 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
    State v. Anderson (1964), , .
  • State v. Sparks 400 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Sparks 400 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1965
    By his plea of guilty he waived all irregularities in the proceedings up to that time and also any error in the information that did not go to the extent of rendering it absolutely void.” , : “The effect of a plea of guilty is the same as if the defendant had been tried before a jury and had been found guilty upon evidence covering all material facts.” , .
  • State v. Cuzick 397 P.2d 629 Ariz. 1964
  • State v. Cuzick 397 P.2d 629 Ariz. 1964
    Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct.